# Why aren't overnight trains able to compete with flying?



## fhussain44 (Jun 23, 2021)

People laugh when I tell them I am taking a 19 hour train from the greater New York City area to Chicago. They don't realize that it is actually faster than flying. The train leaves in the early evening and arrives in the morning. If I took an evening flight I would arrive close to midnight. Then the next morning I would need to spend another hour in traffic getting to downtown Chicago.

Of course nobody gets this. It's unfortunate there are almost 50 non-stop flights a day from NYC to Chicago but only one overnight train.


----------



## Asher (Jun 23, 2021)

fhussain44 said:


> People laugh when I tell them I am taking a 19 hour train from New York City to Chicago.
> 
> me too


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jun 23, 2021)

Where I live people are receptive until they hear that the Sunset arrives and departs once every few days in the dead of night with zero station parking. The Eagle features crack-of-dawn departures with daily service but also suffers delays with no observation car or coach class access to the dining car. These are fixable problems but I honestly understand why it turns new and potential customers away when they're used to routine flights and car trips they control.


----------



## Brian Battuello (Jun 23, 2021)

The dead of night thing is a real problem. Back in the day, most railroads ran at least two trains on each long distance line, so that everyone had an equal chance of a midday departure. Think Coast Daylight and Coast Starlight. Now we're lucky if we don't have to wait for a Monday/Thursday/Saturday to depart. Even if I get a decent departure time, no way am I getting off at Podunk, Iowa at 3am in the morning.


----------



## PVD (Jun 23, 2021)

Well, as someone who likes taking the train from NYC to Chicago, I would point out there are 3 trains from NYC, The Lake Shore, The Cardinal, and connecting in DC or Pittsburgh, The Cap Limited. A regional coach to DC and a roomette on the Cap often prices out favorably to the Lake.


----------



## Danib62 (Jun 23, 2021)

The Cardinal is not a serious option for someone looking to go from NYP to CHI.


----------



## west point (Jun 23, 2021)

The premise of this thread IMO is following a false assumption. When Amtrak is operating short trains that are almost selling out. The argument that the few opening are still available may be more that some passengers will always cancel last minute for any number of reasons. The no change fees certainly has some effect.

Using the Crescent for the next 4 days both coach and sleeper are sold out are coming open then fills up again.

Then the we have the European model which is also have very high loads on the overnight trains. Europe recognizes that the pulling back starting - approximately 2010- 2015 appears to be a mistake.

A very low possibility is Amtrak is afraid that if all available sleepers are booked Amtrak will be in hot water with the POL. It may be a shortage of OBS but we have no idea if that is also a problem. those traveling need to ask them what the manning at there home base. ie: how many on the extra board not working a full schedule.


----------



## frequentflyer (Jun 23, 2021)

The LAX-OAK overnight train from the 80s would be a candidate to bring back. Amtrak has brought back the Night Owl......sort of....... 

The problem with marketing overnight trains to business pax is delays. Two or three hour delays due to mechanical, three mile long freights, "signal problems", etc. will not mesh with their schedules.


----------



## Mailliw (Jun 23, 2021)

The Carolinas could use an overnight train to complement the Carolinian. NYC to Toronto or Montreal would be good candidates for night trains if border preclearance could be worked out.


----------



## danasgoodstuff (Jun 23, 2021)

1st RECORDING OF: Night Train - Jimmy Forrest (1952) (#1 R&B hit) - YouTube 
Maybe they just need better theme music? (Jimmy Forrest, Night Train)


----------



## Palmetto (Jun 23, 2021)

End-to-end distances in Europe are ALOT shorter than they are here for major cities. So, France is a little smaller than Texas, to put things into perspective. Paris-Ventimiglia overnight would be like Brownsville on the Mexican border up to Ft, Worth. Also, our populated cities are either too far spread out or too close to one another to make the idea a viable operation here, I think. The Boston-Washington corridor seems about the only one that pops up in my mind.


----------



## jruff001 (Jun 23, 2021)

fhussain44 said:


> People laugh when I tell them I am taking a 19 hour train from the greater New York City area to Chicago. They don't realize that it is actually faster than flying. The train leaves in the early evening and arrives in the morning. If I took an evening flight I would arrive close to midnight. Then the next morning I would need to spend another hour in traffic getting to downtown Chicago.


No, taking a 19-hr train from NY-CHI is not faster than flying.

When I do a similar business trip, if I lived on the NY end and had to be in (downtown) Chicago for an early morning meeting, I would fly in the night before, get a hotel downtown within walking distance of where the meeting is, wake up shortly before the meeting and know I'd be on time. Or if the meeting wasn't too early I'd either do that, or spend an extra night in my own bed and fly out early the next morning.

If I lived on the Chicago end, I would fly home from NY in the evening and spend the night and wake up in my own bed instead of being on the road.

I prefer train travel but outside the NEC it doesn't make sense for frequent business travelers in the real world who (99% of the time) would prefer to spend an extra night at home rather than traveling.

And that doesn't even get into the lack of schedule options and on-time performance you are stuck with from Amtrak. (The LSL doesn't always arrive in the morning.)


----------



## Trogdor (Jun 23, 2021)

fhussain44 said:


> People laugh when I tell them I am taking a 19 hour train from the greater New York City area to Chicago. They don't realize that it is actually faster than flying. The train leaves in the early evening and arrives in the morning. If I took an evening flight I would arrive close to midnight. Then the next morning I would need to spend another hour in traffic getting to downtown Chicago.
> 
> Of course nobody gets this. It's unfortunate there are almost 50 non-stop flights a day from NYC to Chicago but only one overnight train.



More and faster overnight trains would be nice, but by no measure is the current Lake Shore Limited "actually faster than flying" from New York to Chicago. First, 3:40 pm is not exactly "early evening" (I'd say 5-7 pm would be early evening).

A month ago, I flew from Laguardia to O'Hare on a flight that left at 6:25 pm. Even being overly conservative for travel times and security check-in, you could easily leave Manhattan at 3:40 pm (the Lake Shore's departure time) and reliably make the 6:25 pm flight. The flight arrived in Chicago at 8 pm, which is by no stretch of the imagination "almost midnight." Walking through O'Hare and taking the Blue Line downtown, I was home by 9:15 or 9:30 pm (still not "almost midnight").

Even if I had stayed at O'Hare overnight for some reason, if I got on the Blue Line at O'Hare at 8 AM, I'd still be downtown 45 minutes before the Lake Shore Limited is scheduled to arrive.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Jun 23, 2021)

PVD said:


> Well, as someone who likes taking the train from NYC to Chicago, I would point out there are 3 trains from NYC, The Lake Shore, The Cardinal, and connecting in DC or Pittsburgh, The Cap Limited. A regional coach to DC and a roomette on the Cap often prices out favourably to the Lake.


Does the Capitol Limited count as a train originating from NYC? I know its easy to connect, but I never would consider it as such, as you have to make a connection.



fhussain44 said:


> People laugh when I tell them I am taking a 19 hour train from the greater New York City area to Chicago. They don't realize that it is actually faster than flying. The train leaves in the early evening and arrives in the morning. If I took an evening flight I would arrive close to midnight. Then the next morning I would need to spend another hour in traffic getting to downtown Chicago.
> 
> Of course nobody gets this. It's unfortunate there are almost 50 non-stop flights a day from NYC to Chicago but only one overnight train.



By no stretch of the imagination is any overnight train faster than flying, nor should we advertise or categorize it as such.

An overnight train can only compete in price/convenience ratio over flying, as it does _sometimes _on the east coast (Night Owl/Silver Service).
What you said out is more a matter of convenience than speed.


----------



## Bostontoallpoints (Jun 23, 2021)

Trogdor said:


> More and faster overnight trains would be nice, but by no measure is the current Lake Shore Limited "actually faster than flying" from New York to Chicago. First, 3:40 pm is not exactly "early evening" (I'd say 5-7 pm would be early evening).
> 
> A month ago, I flew from Laguardia to O'Hare on a flight that left at 6:25 pm. Even being overly conservative for travel times and security check-in, you could easily leave Manhattan at 3:40 pm (the Lake Shore's departure time) and reliably make the 6:25 pm flight. The flight arrived in Chicago at 8 pm, which is by no stretch of the imagination "almost midnight." Walking through O'Hare and taking the Blue Line downtown, I was home by 9:15 or 9:30 pm (still not "almost midnight").
> 
> Even if I had stayed at O'Hare overnight for some reason, if I got on the Blue Line at O'Hare at 8 AM, I'd still be downtown 45 minutes before the Lake Shore Limited is scheduled to arrive.


I did travel on the overnight train for business between Boston and Cleveland and Boston and Philidelphia frequently back in the day. The Lake Shore, I think was scheduled to arrive into Cleveland before 5:00 am, and fortunately almost never did. I always had enough time to make my late morning or afternoon meeting. Heading back to Boston required a day on the train, so I either worked on the train or arrived on a Saturday. It was effective going out to Cleveland but not so much coming home. Boston to Philadelphia on the Night Owl was effective both ways and was almost always on time. I think the arrival into Philadelphia was around 5:00 am. I would grab breakfast in 30th street Station before my morning meeting. Going home to Boston that night the arrival was 7:30 am and I would go straight to work. It wasn't for everybody but the sleeper on the Night Owl always to seemed to be well patronized with business types.


----------



## PVD (Jun 23, 2021)

Tlcooper93 said:


> Does the Capitol Limited count as a train originating from NYC? I know its easy to connect, but I never would consider it as such, as you have to make a connection.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The OP did not say originate, and because of the NER frequencies, the total running time is not bad even with the connection. And pricing can be favorable. Even so, the Cardinal does originate in NYC, so there would still be more than one train., at least 3 days a week.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Jun 23, 2021)

PVD said:


> The OP did not say originate, and because of the NER frequencies, the total running time is not bad even with the connection. And pricing can be favorable. Even so, the Cardinal does originate in NYC, so there would still be more than one train., at least 3 days a week.



I assumed that when you said "from NYC," you meant as such. Thanks for clarifying.


----------



## joelkfla (Jun 23, 2021)

west point said:


> A very low possibility is Amtrak is afraid that if all available sleepers are booked Amtrak will be in hot water with the POL.


What's the POL?


----------



## fhussain44 (Jun 23, 2021)

jruff001 said:


> No, taking a 19-hr train from NY-CHI is not faster than flying.
> 
> When I do a similar business trip, if I lived on the NY end and had to be in (downtown) Chicago for an early morning meeting, I would fly in the night before, get a hotel downtown within walking distance of where the meeting is, wake up shortly before the meeting and know I'd be on time. Or if the meeting wasn't too early I'd either do that, or spend an extra night in my own bed and fly out early the next morning.



I live in Tarrytown so catch the train from Croton at 4:30 PM. Getting to LaGuardia or JFK is a huge pain from where I am. It would involve taking the commuter train to Manhattan then a bus in rush hour traffic to the airport.

I agree for business travellers it may not be best option due to delays. But for pleasure travelers it can make more sense.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jun 23, 2021)

Danib62 said:


> The Cardinal is not a serious option for someone looking to go from NYP to CHI.


Of course it is! Great Scenery and an Overnight to Chicago.( Of course the early departure out of NYP, and the 3 times a Week Schedule are not everyone's Cup of Tea)


----------



## Brian Battuello (Jun 23, 2021)

I've seen at least three NYC-Boston train/plane comparisons. It all depends on where you start from, where you're going, and how well you plan the schedule. If I was in Manhattan no way would I fly to Boston. Yet people do. I guess they get some comfort from the well-known to them airport routine. And maybe NYP scared them off.


----------



## zephyr17 (Jun 23, 2021)

Okay, I'll give a bit of both historical perspective as well as current day issues.

Back in the day, fast overnight sleeper service between such city pairs as New York and Chicago or Los Angeles and San Francisco were targeted to the business travelers on expense accounts. The 20th Century Limited, the Lark and their brethren were businessmen's trains. They were scheduled so that one could leave at the end of the business day and arrive at the start of the next one. In fact, the vast majority of Pullman service was aimed at that demographic. The Chief had a one night out westbound schedule between Chicago and Los Angeles, and almost all the premier West Coast streamliners were scheduled with the business traveler in mind, the California Zephyr being a notable exception.

Two things of the biggest things that devastated the rail passenger business were the desertion of the business travelers starting in the late 1950's with the introduction of fast, frequent jet service, and the withdrawal by the Post Office of First Class mail in 1967. The mail withdrawal gets a lot of attention, but the wholesale abandonment of rail by business travelers does not get the same attention. Most business travelers were not railfans and were happy to get fewer nights on the road. Companies were happy not to have to pay for Pullman accommodations.

Today, any resurgence of overnight business travel is unlikely even if the schedules were speeded up and a Century or Broadway could make NY-Chicago in the same time they did in the 1950s, even though air transport is not nearly as appealing now as it was at the dawn of the Jet Age. One of the big reasons, if business travelers were otherwise amenable (which is questionable at best), is that most corporate travel departments do not allow anything but coach for domestic travel. The accommodation charges would be non-reimbursable at almost all companies, and that is the bulk of the cost.

Having said that, I have managed to take two overnight Amtrak trips on business over the course of a 40 year career. It was not easy to do. I had to work the system quite hard to make it happen with corporate finance departments wholly unfamiliar with overnight trains. In both cases I had to pay the accommodation charges myself, although I was able to get companies to reimburse the base rail (coach) fares. It also involved the use of vacation days to account for the additional time on the train.

Overnight business travel will never again be a major part of Amtrak's business. Overnight trains must be marketed for leisure and personal travel. Speed alone is not as important as reliability and comfort. I think Amtrak does have an opportunity what with air travel being such a dreadful experience as it currently is, and I do not think they are taking advantage of it.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Jun 23, 2021)

Brian Battuello said:


> I've seen at least three NYC-Boston train/plane comparisons. It all depends on where you start from, where you're going, and how well you plan the schedule. If I was in Manhattan no way would I fly to Boston. Yet people do. I guess they get some comfort from the well-known to them airport routine. And maybe NYP scared them off.



Agreed. Airports in Boston and NYC (with the exception of KLGA sort of) are so removed from the city center. From the flying point of view, it is _at best_ the same as the train or driving, with only a few exceptions in terms of start and end point areas.

One of my feelings is that train travel in general is so out of the public consciousness and comfort that the thought of trains providing any reasonable alternative to driving/flying is just not in the question; most are surprised by the level of service provided on the NEC




zephyr17 said:


> Overnight business travel will never again be a major part of Amtrak's business. Overnight trains must be marketed to leisure and personal travel. Speed is not as important as reliability and comfort. I think Amtrak does have an opportunity what with air travel being such a dreadful experience as it currently is, and I do not think they are taking advantage of it.



I would argue that the Night Owl could change this. I use it for buisness (and wanted to even before I became a train nerd). It's appealing that you don't need to spend money on a hotel.


----------



## Brian Battuello (Jun 23, 2021)

I just once travelled overnight on expenses. It was a last minute trip and the cost, even with room, was roughly the same. The travel department had a sense of humor about it and made an exception.


----------



## zephyr17 (Jun 23, 2021)

While the Night Owl could well be an exception, and travel departments in the Northeast _might_ be convincible since they deal with the NEC all the time, I still contend that generally no renaissance in overnight business travel is possible in other markets.

You can't build a market on travel/finance departments having a sense of humor and making exceptions. In most companies I have worked for, finance/travel departments were pretty rigid about their guidelines, requiring upper management sign off for waivers. I know darn well that no company I have ever worked for would have approved an expense report with accommodation charges in it. They'd see it as an "upgrade" and therefore _verboten._

I discussed both my trips with finance in advance and I structured them so they'd be within guidelines.


----------



## Qapla (Jun 23, 2021)

Tlcooper93 said:


> *train travel in general is *so *out of the public consciousness* and comfort that the thought of trains providing any reasonable alternative to driving/flying is just not in the question; most are surprised by the level of service provided



This is one of the key factors



zephyr17 said:


> Overnight trains must be marketed



Yes, look how much SouthWorst Airlines advertises (do you want to move around the country?) as well as some of the others ... Amtrak does not take advantage of consistent, quality advertising.


----------



## Brian Battuello (Jun 23, 2021)

Maybe if Amtrak put out a booklet or some flyers with the names of their trains and when they pass each station...


----------



## zephyr17 (Jun 23, 2021)

One really good marketing thing Amtrak did was several years ago they covered the walls between the ceiling and the raised skylights over the Central TSA Checkpoint at Sea-Tac with Amtrak mural ads. Any time you looked up while standing to wait to clear TSA, you saw an Amtrak ad.


----------



## jruff001 (Jun 23, 2021)

fhussain44 said:


> I agree for business travellers it may not be best option due to delays. But for pleasure travelers it can make more sense.


Yes I absolutely agree that for pleasure travelers it can make more sense.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Jun 23, 2021)

Tlcooper93 said:


> By no stretch of the imagination is any overnight train faster than flying, nor should we advertise or categorize as it as such.



Faster in speed of actual transit? No. 
If you factor in the time sleeping at an airport hotel, waiting for a rental car or Uber into the city... the time gets more debatable. 

While I do enjoy train travel, I used train travel regularly for business and for fun when it made sense vs. flying. Many times it did.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Jun 23, 2021)

fhussain44 said:


> I agree for business travellers it may not be best option due to delays. But for pleasure travelers it can make more sense.



I’m pretty sure I’ve had the same amounts of delays when flying as taking Amtrak. (I’ve traveled a crazy amount for both work and fun... up until covid hit of course)


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Jun 23, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> Faster in speed of actual transit? No.
> If you factor in the time sleeping at an airport hotel, waiting for a rental car or Uber into the city... the time gets more debatable.
> 
> While I do enjoy train travel, I used train travel regularly for business and for fun when it made sense vs. flying. Many times it did.



Again, you’re really highlighting convenience rather than speed, which I am alll for, and is absolutely a reasonable argument for night trains.

In terms of getting from A to B quickly, it’s better to fly, especially given the choice of flight times available. What you’re pointing out is a very specific time frame in which overnight trains can compete; other possible flight times render the speed argument useless.

With other considerations, night trains prove their worth, just not with speed.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Jun 23, 2021)

Tlcooper93 said:


> Again, you’re really highlighting convenience rather than speed, which I am alll for, and is absolutely a reasonable argument for night trains.
> 
> In terms of getting from A to B quickly, it’s better to fly, especially given the choice of flight times available. What you’re pointing out is a very specific time frame in which overnight trains can compete; other possible flight times render the speed argument useless.
> 
> With other considerations, night trains prove their worth, just not with speed.



Yes... that’s why I said actual speed of transit. 

For me, I factor in the time that I will be spending in total and yes the convenience as well.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Jun 23, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> Yes... that’s why I said actual speed of transit.
> 
> For me, I factor in the time that I will be spending in total and yes the convenience as well.



So was I. We all factor in that with speed. I’m talking about door to door.

Let’s take the most convenient night train (in my opinion): the night owl.

You are factoring in a hotel, but most would simply chose a different flight time that would not force them to take a hotel.

BOS-WAS travel time (door to door) would never be more than even 5 hours (and that’s with significant travel time on either end of the flight). The night owl, even with in between destinations (in order to provide sufficient sleep) is usually at least 7 hours.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Jun 23, 2021)

Tlcooper93 said:


> You are factoring in a hotel, but most would simply chose a different flight time that would not force them to take a hotel.



That must be why there are so many airport hotels.


----------



## George Harris (Jun 23, 2021)

Admittedly 25 years ago, but last time I had to work in NYC, the company put me up in Newark handy to PATH and I could expense PATH because it was much cheaper than a hotel in Manhattan. I would think there could be a real market for sleepers getting you to New York in the AM as a cost saving, even if your first day schedule would have to start at say 10:00 instead of 8:00.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Jun 23, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> That must be why there are so many airport hotels.


For stranded travelers, and purposeful layovers, yes...


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Jun 23, 2021)

Tlcooper93 said:


> For stranded travelers, and purposeful layovers, yes...



Alrighty well, I guess I’m the only business traveler in the world that has spent many nights in airport hotels for other reasons. 

And I’m also apparently the only business traveler that chooses overnight trains when they make sense with my schedule.


----------



## jruff001 (Jun 23, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> I’m pretty sure I’ve had the same amounts of delays when flying as taking Amtrak. (I’ve traveled a crazy amount for both work and fun... up until covid hit of course)


You must not fly very much then. Amtrak long distance trains have a WAY worse on time record than the airlines. Pick a random New York to Chicago flight and compare its on-time history to the LSL or Cardinal. 

Plus you are not considering the fact that if your flight is significantly delayed or cancelled, you can (often but certainly not always) be rerouted or rebooked onto a different flight. To go with the example in the original post in this thread, pre-Covid both United and American Airlines had pretty much hourly service between NYC (meaning LGA / EWR) and CHI (meaning ORD), so you could be rebooked onto another flight if yours hit the fan. OTOH if the Lake Shore Limited cancels, whelp, try again in 24 hours. Let alone the tri-weekly Cardinal. Or you might be "lucky" enough to be put on a bus the same day instead??? No thanks.

Of course, yes, a huge snowstorm or something similar might ground the airlines for 24 hours, but Amtrak cancels for days at at time too during severe weather events at any point along the route (actual or even threatened).


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Jun 23, 2021)

jruff001 said:


> You must not fly very much then.



Why would have I lots of delays if I don’t fly very often? 

Before covid hit I’ve traveled pretty much non stop for work (and for fun when not working  ) my entire life in all modes of transit.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Jun 23, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> Alrighty well, I guess I’m the only business traveler in the world that has spent many nights in airport hotels for other reasons.
> 
> And I’m also apparently the only business traveler that chooses overnight trains when they make sense with my schedule.



Ive taken the night owl 5 times in the last 2 months for buisness, so you are in good company.


----------



## jruff001 (Jun 23, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> Why would have I lots of delays if I don’t fly very often?


If your #of airline delays = your # of Amtrak delays, and if Amtrak (long distance) has a worse record of delays than the airlines (which it does), that would indicate you fly a lot less than you take the train.

But maybe you travel a ridiculous amount for both, in which case my bad.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Jun 23, 2021)

jruff001 said:


> But maybe you travel a ridiculous amount for both



I do. It also could be that I’ve gotten lucky with Amtrak and unlucky with flights. 

I’ve definitely had significant delays on Amtrak... but also with airlines.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Jun 23, 2021)

joelkfla said:


> What's the POL?



In this context I am going with “politicians”. That said I don’t understand why politicians would be hostile for Amtrak to become profitable on certain routes.


----------



## coventry801 (Jun 23, 2021)

zephyr17 said:


> Okay, I'll give a bit of both historical perspective as well as current day issues.
> 
> Back in the day, fast overnight sleeper service between such city pairs as New York and Chicago or Los Angeles and San Francisco were targeted to the business travelers on expense accounts. The 20th Century Limited, the Lark and their brethren were businessmen's trains. They were scheduled so that one could leave at the end of the business day and arrive at the start of the next one. In fact, the vast majority of Pullman service was aimed at that demographic. The Chief had a one night out westbound schedule between Chicago and Los Angeles, and almost all the premier West Coast streamliners were scheduled with the business traveler in mind, the California Zephyr being a notable exception.
> 
> ...



No business would reimburse travel cost that constantly goes 1~2 grand. Especially last minute price,
which is the reason that "train travel in general is so out of the public consciousness". 

Expend every consist to at least 10 sleepers and put ticket price in reasonable range (I would consider 200~300 per room per night a reasonable price) then that's a different story for sure.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Jun 23, 2021)

coventry801 said:


> No business would reimburse travel cost that constantly goes 1~2 grand. Especially last minute price,



That’s comparable to domestic first class for in demand flights. 

Depending on the manager, I usually just get a set amount that is equal to the flight they were going to book me on.


----------



## jruff001 (Jun 23, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> That’s comparable to domestic first class for in demand flights.


Right. And most employers will not pay for most of their employees to travel in FC. Sure, if an employee travels enough, s/he might get upgraded with points / miles from time to time, but the average middle to upper level manager will not be traveling FC regularly on the employer's dime.

Executive level is another story. But in that case the employer is paying for them to get somewhere fast, not spend time messing with Amtrak's delays and sparse scheduling. And when the exec is going to be on the road that much, s/he wants to spend more nights at home, not traveling.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Jun 23, 2021)

jruff001 said:


> Right. And most employers will not pay for most of their employees to travel in FC. Sure, if an employee travels enough, s/he might get upgraded with points / miles from time to time, but the average middle to upper level manager will not be traveling FC regularly on the employer's dime.
> 
> Executive level is another story. But in that case the employer is paying for them to get somewhere fast, not spend time messing with Amtrak's delays and sparse scheduling. And when the exec is going to be on the road that much, s/he wants to spend more nights at home, not traveling.



Glad you know best! All I know is my situation!


----------



## jebr (Jun 23, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> That must be why there are so many airport hotels.



At the same time, a lot of people choose an airport hotel either because it's near where their meetings are, or simply to be able to rest right after their flight and deal with getting to their meeting in the morning. The vast majority of people would prefer sleeping in a hotel room over sleeping in a roomette (or even bedroom) on Amtrak - the bed is comfier, there's more room, and you're not feeling the track movement all night (which can be quite rough in some areas!) Add in that coach airfare + an airport hotel is likely cheaper or similarly priced to a roomette on Amtrak, and it's difficult to justify the train for business.

The other wild card with everything is where you need to be for your meeting, visiting family, etc. If you're an employee for US Cellular, for instance, and you need to get to HQ in Chicago, O'Hare is quite a bit closer and more convenient than Union Station downtown (the building is near the Cumberland station.) There's a lot of corporate buildings in the northwest Chicago suburbs as well, and in those cases Amtrak is quite a bit less convenient than flying into O'Hare. The train is very convenient for downtown travel, but if your final destination is at a suburban office park, that "downtown to downtown convenience" isn't so convenient.

There's definitely some market for overnight sleeper travel, and perhaps there's a case for more businesses to use it for business travel, but in Amtrak's current form of doing it I see it staying quite niche. If Amtrak was able to set it up more like a hotel, there might be a bit more room for it on shorter corridors (for example, allow "check-in" from 3 PM - 10 PM where people can get their bags in their room, settle in, and maybe even wind down for the night, travel from 10:30 PM - 6:30 AM, then allow "check-out" from 6:30 AM - 11 AM so people can sleep in, maybe grab breakfast before getting 100% ready, etc.) Even with that, I think it'll be hard for Amtrak to carve out a huge chunk of the market - unless you're going on a single-day trip, you're going to need to be in another hotel anyways, so why not settle in a night early or stay one more night?


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Jun 23, 2021)

jebr said:


> At the same time, a lot of people choose an airport hotel either because it's near where their meetings are, or simply to be able to rest right after their flight and deal with getting to their meeting in the morning. The vast majority of people would prefer sleeping in a hotel room over sleeping in a roomette (or even bedroom) on Amtrak - the bed is comfier, there's more room, and you're not feeling the track movement all night (which can be quite rough in some areas!) Add in that coach airfare + an airport hotel is likely cheaper or similarly priced to a roomette on Amtrak, and it's difficult to justify the train for business.
> 
> The other wild card with everything is where you need to be for your meeting, visiting family, etc. If you're an employee for US Cellular, for instance, and you need to get to HQ in Chicago, O'Hare is quite a bit closer and more convenient than Union Station downtown (the building is near the Cumberland station.) There's a lot of corporate buildings in the northwest Chicago suburbs as well, and in those cases Amtrak is quite a bit less convenient than flying into O'Hare. The train is very convenient for downtown travel, but if your final destination is at a suburban office park, that "downtown to downtown convenience" isn't so convenient.
> 
> There's definitely some market for overnight sleeper travel, and perhaps there's a case for more businesses to use it for business travel, but in Amtrak's current form of doing it I see it staying quite niche. If Amtrak was able to set it up more like a hotel, there might be a bit more room for it on shorter corridors (for example, allow "check-in" from 3 PM - 10 PM where people can get their bags in their room, settle in, and maybe even wind down for the night, travel from 10:30 PM - 6:30 AM, then allow "check-out" from 6:30 AM - 11 AM so people can sleep in, maybe grab breakfast before getting 100% ready, etc.) Even with that, I think it'll be hard for Amtrak to carve out a huge chunk of the market - unless you're going on a single-day trip, you're going to need to be in another hotel anyways, so why not settle in a night early or stay one more night?



Complete agreement.
Again, the only viable, practical, and competitive sleeper train on the market (in my opinion with maybe a few city pairs on select routes) is the Night Owl.

It truly provides a service that can rival other modes of travel, mostly because of the Acela combo, and the fact that there are so many in between destinations that draw numbers.

Atlanta-DC, Chicago-Denver and Albany-Chicago certainly fit the bill time wise, but it’s hard to justify the price on those along with any intermediate destinations.

If Amtrak can keep the price of the Night Owl reasonable, it will be a big deal.


----------



## Qapla (Jun 24, 2021)

I guess I have a different take on this ...

I do not live near a major airport. To fly to some place that would mean I needed something better than a regional airport, I would have to drive 1½ to 2½ hours just to get to the airport. That means I either have to pay to park my vehicle or I have to find someone else who can spare the time to take me - keeping n mind they have to drive the same 1½-2½ hours back and repeat this to pick me up when I come back.

On the other hand, I can be at an Amtrak station in 35 minutes with very little traffic to contend with. Somehow, I doubt I am in a such a unique situation that no one else has a similar situation.

The fact is, when I have told people about going to NY on by train, they are surprised because they are unaware that the train still runs or that it goes to NY. I have had several say if they had known they may have taken the train.

Lack of advertising has severely curtailed ridership on Amtrak - leading to "loss profits" (if that really exists) - leading to reducing service - leading to less ridership.

Instead of comparing what Amtrak cannot or doesn't have when compared to flying or driving, positive advertising could and should extoll what Amtrak DOES have that both the others don't have and can't offer ... and there are several things that fit this category.

When is the last time you saw an ad for an airline that mentions the security checks, traffic congestion at airports, long lines at car rentals or the lack of freedom that driving offers?

Or, when have you seen a car ad that shows worn out drivers pushing themselves to drive "straight through" so they don't have to spend money on a hotel.

When is the last time you saw an Amtrak ad that makes traveling by train look inviting, convenient and welcome?


----------



## McIntyre2K7 (Jun 24, 2021)

I could see Atlanta to Orlando and Atlanta to New Orleans as options.


----------



## Trogdor (Jun 24, 2021)

jruff001 said:


> If your #of airline delays = your # of Amtrak delays, and if Amtrak (long distance) has a worse record of delays than the airlines (which it does), that would indicate you fly a lot less than you take the train.
> 
> But maybe you travel a ridiculous amount for both, in which case my bad.



Your logic seems backwards. If the number of airline delays equals the number of Amtrak delays, with Amtrak having a worse record, that takes a lot *more* airline flights to get to the same number of delays as on an Amtrak train.

If an Amtrak LD train is late 1 out of 2 times, and a flight is late 1 out of 4 times, then you would have to fly twice as much to equal the same total number of delays (i.e. four flights for every two trains).


----------



## IndyLions (Jun 24, 2021)

While overnight train travel for business is not mainstream (to say the least) - your ability to use it from time to time depends on your situation.

I started my career in the mid-80’s at huge businesses that basically dictated travel itineraries. But for the last 30 years I’ve worked for a small company with flexibility.

Before considering a train for business travel, I always analyze the cost of alternatives (flying and driving). If I take the train, it is because the total costs are in line (fares, hotels, rental cars, meals, etc). On occasion I leave or return on a weekend because the dollars make sense but the extra time does not.

However, in these modern times of being able to work anywhere, any time - the time en route isn’t as much of an issue any more. If it’s a workday, I’m working - no matter where I am. I’m consistently more productive on a travel day working in a roomette than I am rushing around from airport to airport. And I’m certainly more productive than when I’m driving. Other than making phone calls there’s not much work you can do in a car while driving. At least not safely.

So for me, train travel on business is one of the things I like to mix in along with the flying and driving. The variety of all three is one of the things that makes business travel enjoyable for me.

One size almost never fits all. Why not have choices?


----------



## cirdan (Jun 24, 2021)

Palmetto said:


> End-to-end distances in Europe are ALOT shorter than they are here for major cities. So, France is a little smaller than Texas, to put things into perspective. Paris-Ventimiglia overnight would be like Brownsville on the Mexican border up to Ft, Worth. Also, our populated cities are either too far spread out or too close to one another to make the idea a viable operation here, I think. The Boston-Washington corridor seems about the only one that pops up in my mind.



in my opinion there should be plenty of city pairs that are within striking distance of being able to offer an attractive night train .

The NEC may be a special case as there are important places all the way along it . But for a night train, 3 am type stops are not super attractive . And unnecessary stops also wake people up and so diminish overall comfort . So I think a night train would work connecting two metroplex type areas , serving several stops in both . It doesn’t really matter if the stuff in between is largely empty .

So for your Fort Worth example the train might call at Fort Worth , at Dallas and there connect to dart , but would or should also serve one or several beltway stops, as not everybody will be able or willing to come by public transit .

And then once you’ve finished collecting within the metroplex it’s non stopto some other metroplex area where you do the same in reverse .

Being able to make several stops and thus make it easier for people to get to you is a big selling point versus airlines. And seeing it’s a night train and thus not super time sensitive , the pickup stations don’t even need to be in a straight line but you can work out a way to serve as many people as possible


----------



## jloewen (Jun 24, 2021)

cirdan said:


> in my opinion there should be plenty of city pairs that are within striking distance of being able to offer an attractive night train .
> 
> The NEC may be a special case as there are important places all the way along it . But for a night train, 3 am type stops are not super attractive . And unnecessary stops also wake people up and so diminish overall comfort . So I think a night train would work connecting two metroplex type areas , serving several stops in both . It doesn’t really matter if the stuff in between is largely empty .
> 
> ...


I take Amtrak on business from WAS to CHI (as well as to points in N IN such as S Bend and Elkhart). The only problem with the Capital Ltd. is on-time performance. I should be able to schedule a lunch talk or 11AM meeting, since it supposedly arrives around 8:30AM. But that can be risky.
Admittedly, the CL is shorter/faster than the LSL from NYC.
The CL too should speed up its schedule (and not be late!) so as to leave a bit later (say, 4:30PM) and still get into Pittsburgh at a more reasonable time (say, 11PM) and then arrive in CHI at, say, 8AM.
But even as it is, it's usable for business travelers and saves time, since you have to sleep and eat dinner and breakfast anyway, and you're moving while doing those things. 
Same for WAS to ATL, and to Savannah and Jacksonville, FL. Also WAS to Purdue.
Yes, travel agents, etc., must be educated so as to think about the train as a reasonable option.


----------



## Palmetto (Jun 24, 2021)

The only other large cities enough to support an overnight sleeper in Texas would probably be San Antonio and Houston. The Texas Eagle does its run between Ft. Worth and San Antonio in six hours, 58 minutes. Add another 45 minutes [or thereabouts] to Dallas and an intermediate stop. That could work, with an 11:00 PM departure at each end, but I don't know if San Antonio could support the traffic needed to have such a service. Houston - San Antonio is too short a trip to have this type of service, I'd say.

California had its _Spirt of California _once upon a time. For whatever reason it stopped running.
Chicago-Memphis? 
Chicago-St. Paul?
Boston-Pittsburg?


----------



## Exvalley (Jun 24, 2021)

As someone who actually rides the LSL for business, permit me to weigh in.

The LSL is not competitive time-wise with flying. Not even close.

So why do I ride the LSL?
1) First and foremost, I enjoy it. I like riding trains. 
2) Secondarily, I like the convenience. Since the nearest airport is a 1.5 hour drive, I'd rather drive to the train station the afternoon before and arrive in Chicago showered and refreshed the next morning. I can also catch up with some work on the train. After arriving in Chicago, I am usually able to check into my hotel room early and get settled before attending my meeting.

That said, my meetings in Chicago start in the early afternoon. There is absolutely no way that I would take the LSL if I had a meeting that started before 1:00 PM. The on-time reliability just isn't there.


----------



## Qapla (Jun 24, 2021)

Comparing trains to other means of travel in terms of speed is one of the misconceptions ... time is not the only reason people use the means of travel they choose.

Amtrak should advertise the advantages of the train and not mention or dwell upon the disadvantages ... after all, planes and cars have their disadvantages as well.

Amtrak offers wider seats, more space and convenience to power (for keeping devices charged) than planes. Amtrak offers a relaxed manner of travel not available driving. With Amtrak you can work, eat, sleep, sightsee and use the bathroom while traveling without needing to stop or wear a seatbelt. You can even walk to stretch your legs - not doable in a car and not exactly welcome in a plane.

Even on this board many seem to think the only criteria that should be compared is "speed" ...


----------



## Exvalley (Jun 24, 2021)

Qapla said:


> Comparing trains to other means of travel in terms of speed is one of the misconceptions ... time is not the only reason people use the means of travel they choose.



Okay, but this is how this thread started:


fhussain44 said:


> People laugh when I tell them I am taking a 19 hour train from the greater New York City area to Chicago. They don't realize that it is actually faster than flying.



In no way shape or form is taking the train from New York to Chicago faster than flying.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Jun 24, 2021)

There’s 100 ways (almost in this thread alone) of stating one truth:

There are many reasons to take an overnight train, and many ways in which they can compete with buisness air travel in certain locations and time frames.

speed is not one of them.


----------



## Barb Stout (Jun 24, 2021)

George Harris said:


> Admittedly 25 years ago, but last time I had to work in NYC, the company put me up in Newark handy to PATH and I could expense PATH because it was much cheaper than a hotel in Manhattan. I would think there could be a real market for sleepers getting you to New York in the AM as a cost saving, even if your first day schedule would have to start at say 10:00 instead of 8:00.


What is PATH?


----------



## fhussain44 (Jun 24, 2021)

Tlcooper93 said:


> There’s 100 ways (almost in this thread alone) of stating one truth:
> 
> There are many reasons to take an overnight train, and many ways in which they can compete with buisness air travel in certain locations and time frames.
> 
> speed is not one of them.


Yes it is when you factor in flights that arrive late at night, hotel shuttles, and rides to the city during morning rush hour..


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Jun 24, 2021)

fhussain44 said:


> Yes it is when you factor in flights that arrive late at night, hotel shuttles, and rides to the city during morning rush hour..



Nope. You can just take a different flight that doesn’t force you to book a hotel. Most flights don’t arrive delayed.

again, you’re adding a bunch of specific circumstances that don’t happen for most buisness flights. If you tailor the situation to the point where it’s just poor flight picking, yes, overnight trains are faster.


----------



## jis (Jun 24, 2021)

Barb Stout said:


> What is PATH?


Port Authority Trans Hudson - a subway system connecting midtown/downtown Manhattan NY with Jersey City, Hoboken and Newark in NJ.


----------



## Trogdor (Jun 24, 2021)

Barb Stout said:


> What is PATH?


Port Authority Trans-Hudson. Basically a subway system that connects New York, Hoboken and Newark.


----------



## Exvalley (Jun 24, 2021)

fhussain44 said:


> Yes it is when you factor in flights that arrive late at night, hotel shuttles, and rides to the city during morning rush hour..


This thread is about taking the LSL from New York to Chicago. The Lake Shore Limited departs Grand Central at 3:40 PM. The earliest you can conduct business in Chicago is 11:00 AM on the following day - and that is super risky.

You can take a flight from LGA to Chicago departing at 5:10 PM and arrive in Chicago at 6:52 PM. Rush hour is over and you are at your downtown hotel in time for dinner followed by a nice night sleeping in a comfortable king size bed. You can conduct business first thing in the morning - hours before someone arriving on the LSL can conduct their business. And if you are a morning person you can fly to Chicago in the morning and still be conducting business before the LSL arrives.

In the other direction, let's say that you finish business at 5:00 PM. A 7:00 PM flight will get you into New York at 10:11 PM. But let's say that you don't want to get home so late. You can spend the night in Chicago and catch an 8:00 AM flight that gets into New York at 11:11 AM - hours before the LSL's arrival at 6:42PM. Want to sleep in a little later? Take the 9:00 AM flight and get into New York at noon. You are still back at your office (or home) well before the LSL has arrived.

No matter which way you slice it, flying is faster.

I take the LSL for business - but the reason I take it is certainly not because it is faster.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Jun 24, 2021)

Tlcooper93 said:


> Nope. You can just take a different flight that doesn’t force you to book a hotel. Most flights don’t arrive delayed.
> 
> again, you’re adding a bunch of specific circumstances that don’t happen for most buisness flights. If you tailor the situation to the point where it’s just poor flight picking, yes, overnight trains are faster.



You are also using specific situations... “poor flight picking” - not all airports have that many flights to to choose from.


----------



## Trogdor (Jun 24, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> You are also using specific situations... “poor flight picking” - not all airports have that many flights to to choose from.



The thread is about New York to Chicago, per the OP. A quick check shows between 30 and 40 flights per day between New York (LGA/JFK/EWR) and Chicago (ORD/MDW).


----------



## Qapla (Jun 24, 2021)

Exvalley said:


> This thread is about taking the LSL from New York to Chicago. The Lake Shore Limited departs Grand Central at 3:40 PM. The earliest you can conduct business in Chicago is 11:00 AM on the following day - and that is super risky.



Yes, the OP was about taking the overnight train from NY to Chicago - but nothing in the OP said anything about "business" ... yet most of the comments seem to dwell on "business travel" - people do travel for other reasons than business.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Jun 24, 2021)

Trogdor said:


> The thread is about New York to Chicago, per the OP. A quick check shows between 30 and 40 flights per day between New York (LGA/JFK/EWR) and Chicago (ORD/MDW).



That’s not in the thread title, I didn’t realize that was the only example we could consider.


----------



## Exvalley (Jun 24, 2021)

Qapla said:


> Yes, the OP was about taking the overnight train from NY to Chicago - *but nothing in the OP said anything about "business"*


Trains move at the same speed - whether for business travelers or leisure travelers.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Jun 24, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> You are also using specific situations... “poor flight picking” - not all airports have that many flights to to choose from.



most overnight trains in question here, are about connecting city pairs where reasonable travel alternatives exist.

Again, we are talking about the viability of overnight trains on popular travel routes (or rather routes that also compete with flying). Taking away other travel alternative, making it a remote location, and saying “look, this night train is faster!” doesn’t count...

there are absolutely remote situations where the fastest mode of travel is a train. but that’s not really what’s in question here.

the OP asked the question of why overnight trains aren’t competing with flying, and coincided that question with the false claim that your average night train is faster than flying. This is not true.
If you finagle a situation that is outside of the ordinary, yes, flying _can be _slower with a perfect storm of travel disasters. But most major city pairs that have an overnight train between them have dozens of other faster travel options.

If you want to discuss convenience, that’s different...


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Jun 24, 2021)

Exvalley said:


> Trains move at the same speed - whether for business travelers or leisure travelers.



I don’t know...
For some reason, whenever I’m traveling for something important, the train goes slower....


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Jun 24, 2021)

Tlcooper93 said:


> If you want to discuss convenience, that’s different...



Yes, the speed of actual transit is always going to go to the airline. I agree.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Jun 24, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> Yes, the speed of actual transit is always going to go to the airline. I agree.


Glad we finally ironed that one out....


----------



## fhussain44 (Jun 24, 2021)

Exvalley said:


> This thread is about taking the LSL from New York to Chicago. The Lake Shore Limited departs Grand Central at 3:40 PM. The earliest you can conduct business in Chicago is 11:00 AM on the following day - and that is super risky.



I am out in the suburbs so catch the train from Croton at 430PM. I need to leave my home by 4PM to meet it there. I would need to book a 7 or 8PM flight to give ample time to reach the airport by public transit.


----------



## Siegmund (Jun 24, 2021)

Re "which is late more often" -- one big thing to consider is what happens when you are late.

Amtrak actually rebooks me or puts me up in a hotel. They don't debate whether the train being delayed by flooding in North Dakota was "their fault" or "the weather's fault." I didn't make my connection and I am accommodated.

It's true that random airline delays are moderately uncommon- but weather related delays are exceedingly common, and the when it's weather, the airline says "not our fault you are stuck in Seattle tonight, go get your own hotel room and dinner, and come back here at 6 in the morning to be rebooked." So much for flying home the same afternoon my conference ends and sleeping in my own bed!

I have had some success getting employers to pay for train travel, even for sleeper travel. They won't, in general, pay for first-class upgrades; but some of them are responsive to "reimburse you up to the cost your plane ticket would have been" and some are responsive to "yes, you DID save us a $200 night at the conference hotel by riding an overnight train and arriving the morning of the conference", and treating the sleeper upgrade as lodging rather than travel.


----------



## fhussain44 (Jun 24, 2021)

Exvalley said:


> This thread is about taking the LSL from New York to Chicago. The Lake Shore Limited departs Grand Central at 3:40 PM. The earliest you can conduct business in Chicago is 11:00 AM on the following day - and that is super risky.



I am out in the suburbs so catch the train from Croton at 430PM. I need to leave my home by 4PM to meet it there. I would need to book a 7 or 8PM flight to give ample time to reach the airport by public transit.


----------



## Exvalley (Jun 24, 2021)

fhussain44 said:


> I am out in the suburbs so catch the train from Croton at 430PM. I need to leave my home by 4PM to meet it there. I would need to book a 7 or 8PM flight to give ample time to reach the airport by public transit.


I’m struggling to see how that makes the train faster overall.


----------



## jis (Jun 24, 2021)

Siegmund said:


> I have had some success getting employers to pay for train travel, even for sleeper travel. They won't, in general, pay for first-class upgrades; but some of them are responsive to "reimburse you up to the cost your plane ticket would have been" and some are responsive to "yes, you DID save us a $200 night at the conference hotel by riding an overnight train and arriving the morning of the conference", and treating the sleeper upgrade as lodging rather than travel.


We used to be able to do that until the travel department booking system was able to cleverly compute the actual cost of lodging taking into account those special corporate deals with large hotel chains and then insisted that the only lodging that will be reimbursed by the company would be those booked through their booking engine. That put a complete kibosh on getting sleeper upgrades reimbursed by the company since the company had not contract with Amtrak and the contract lodging price at the destination city was always less than anything that Amtrak could conjure up as Sleeper upgrade charge.

At that time they also did not allow us to stay in the Conference hotel unless the conference organizer added a hefty charge for not staying there, and of course that also eliminated doing the Sleeper thing, unless the Amtrak charge plus the hefty charge was less than the no hefty charge and one hotel night at the conference rate. It was all caused by the growth of the tyranny of more and more capable analytical engines in the reservation systems, and the travel vendor getting kicbacks from the company proportional to the documented amount of money saved by the company.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Jun 24, 2021)

Siegmund said:


> Re "which is late more often" -- one big thing to consider is what happens when you are late.
> 
> Amtrak actually rebooks me or puts me up in a hotel. They don't debate whether the train being delayed by flooding in North Dakota was "their fault" or "the weather's fault." I didn't make my connection and I am accommodated.
> 
> ...



that’s awesome! Unfortunately, in my buisness, if a concert venue/booker/management is paying for my travel, they won’t pay for the cost of a sleeper ticket, and I’m relying on my own cash/points to upgrade to sleeper. They often will book a train ticket on the NEC without me asking though.

flying with an old violin is sort of like roulette. Will they force me to check it, subsequently forcing me to forfeit the ticket and take a different flight?
On a train, never an issue.


----------



## west point (Jun 24, 2021)

Say I have a business in Buffalo that is small. I have to work at the office at 0830 until1800. The next day I am assigned to meet our business customer at 0800 .in South bend. Can I drive ? I would be in poor shape for the meeting. If I an fly to O'Hare i will have to book a fight after 2100 arriving in CHI about 2145 ( time change ) Then stay at a hotel 2359 until 0500 with rental car to get to SBO by that 0800 meeting . That is not good. 

If I can get a sleeper going to CHI I get off it at 0700 local (EDT ) and make the meeting at 0800 . There are many examples that do not have originations and arrival not at the beginning and end of a trip. You posters here really need to not just focus on end points but also points that are in between. 

Many in between points are being missed. On shorter end to end points do the way it has been done in Europe, Hold the train at a location until about 0100 - 0300 ? Naturally every route would need different times.


----------



## MARC Rider (Jun 24, 2021)

Tlcooper93 said:


> So was I. We all factor in that with speed. I’m talking about door to door.
> 
> Let’s take the most convenient night train (in my opinion): the night owl.
> 
> ...


The Night Owl BOS - WAS is scheduled for 9 - 10 hours.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Jun 24, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> The Night Owl BOS - WAS is scheduled for 9 - 10 hours.


Yes, I’ve ridden it 5 times now since April.
I’m referring to in between points like PHL-PVD. My point was stating that the shortest you would want the Night Owl to be (when connecting in between destinations) is 7 hours, to at least get some sleep.


----------



## Exvalley (Jun 24, 2021)

west point said:


> Many in between points are being missed.


The original poster said that the train is faster than flying when traveling between New York and Chicago.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Jun 24, 2021)

west point said:


> You posters here really need to not just focus on end points but also points that are in between.


How much of any of these posts did you read?


----------



## sttom (Jun 24, 2021)

Why aren't overnight trains able to compete with flying?

My first point would be that Amtrak's network isn't dense enough to provide effective overnight service between most cities in this country. For a city pair to be fruitful as a pair, they need an 8 to 12 hour end to end run time. Amtrak serves many city pairs on good enough schedules, but the trains are largely banked for Chicago. Which means scheduled times in the middle of the route aren't convenient. For example, Oakland to Portland works under the existing schedule, but Amtrak hasn't run an Oakland/LA overnight without state funding. And this is just on the existing network. A Chicago/Nashville service doesn't exist even with a 2am arrival time. And there are a bunch of city pairs like that. 

My second point is Amtrak's service offering really doesn't fit the market that would want an overnight train. I've tried sleeping in an coach seat and while it's ok for a cat nap, I can't imagine it would be fun overnight. Amtrak though have up on a bed only option which makes their normal offer on overnight trains a harder sell on purely overnight trains. Normally a sleeper fare comes with food, it's kind of hard to charge normal sleeper fare and only give people gas station inspired breakfasts. From what I've seen people say of the sleeper on the overnight Regional, it leaves a lot to be desired. 

My third point, jumping off the second one is that Amtrak's management doesn't seem to be very imaginative when it comes to envisioning and articulating a future for itself. It's 2035 plan is pathetic, they don't seem to be learning that much from the rise of NightJet in Europe and that shows with how the overnight Regional has been relaunched. Amtrak's upper management needs to have it's collective boat rocked and frankly I'd have more faith in a group of people from here than the board that gets their positions based on political patronage. 

Overnight trains could be competitive with flying in some cases, but won't be with Amtrak's current leadership.


----------



## jpakala (Jun 24, 2021)

My father always took the train from Pittsburgh to NYC or sometimes Chicago, Detroit, St. Louis, Buffalo, etc. At first there were only propeller planes, flights were bumpy & very expensive. Pittsburgh's airport was way west of downtown and we were east. He'd return from NYC and get off at E. Pgh. & walk into his office building. He saved on hotel & had a Pullman roomette or duplex room (sort of like a bedroom, but for one person with 2 bedrooms at each end of the car and 12 duplex rooms in between, 1 lower, 2 upper, 2 lower, 2 upper, 2 lower, 2 upper, 1 lower). PRR had those, though NP had four on the same level below a dome. (B&O may have had a few in a dome car along with their unique two-person drawing rooms.)


----------



## jruff001 (Jun 24, 2021)

sttom said:


> My third point, jumping off the second one is that Amtrak's management doesn't seem to be very imaginative when it comes to envisioning and articulating a future for itself. It's 2035 plan is pathetic, they don't seem to be learning that much from the rise of NightJet in Europe and that shows with how the overnight Regional has been relaunched. Amtrak's upper management needs to have it's collective boat rocked and frankly I'd have more faith in a group of people from here than the board that gets their positions based on political patronage.


If you want to see something like Europe's NightJet in the U.S., it will take a LOT more than a change in Amtrak's upper management. Any upper management team in Amtrak's history would have loved to have seen a NightJet concept become reality. But the structural / economic / political realities in the U.S. won't let that happen (at least not in our lifetimes), no matter who is in the upper management team.

Oh and not to you, but LOL to those who are again suggesting that all Amtrak needs to do is have a snazzy advertising campaign to convince business travelers that it is worth their time to do an 19+ hr CHI-NYC overnight train ride vs. a 2 1/2 hr flight.


----------



## jruff001 (Jun 24, 2021)

fhussain44 said:


> I am out in the suburbs so catch the train from Croton at 430PM. I need to leave my home by 4PM to meet it there. I would need to book a 7 or 8PM flight to give ample time to reach the airport by public transit.


And I am sure there are at least as many people who live on/in LI/NJ and can be at LGA/EWR relatively easily, but getting to NYP to catch the LSL would be one hassle too much.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Jun 24, 2021)

jruff001 said:


> Oh and not to you, but LOL to those who are again suggesting that all Amtrak needs to do is have a snazzy advertising campaign to convince business travelers that it is worth their time to do an 19+ hr CHI-NYC overnight train ride vs. a 2 1/2 hr flight.



A good Amtrak advertising campaign would help ridership. NYC-Chicago should be a very busy passenger corridor with a dedicated limited stop night train.


----------



## jruff001 (Jun 24, 2021)

west point said:


> Say I have a business in Buffalo that is small. I have to work at the office at 0830 until1800. The next day I am assigned to meet our business customer at 0800 .in South bend. Can I drive ? I would be in poor shape for the meeting. If I an fly to O'Hare i will have to book a fight after 2100 arriving in CHI about 2145 ( time change ) Then stay at a hotel 2359 until 0500 with rental car to get to SBO by that 0800 meeting . That is not good.
> 
> If I can get a sleeper going to CHI I get off it at 0700 local (EDT ) and make the meeting at 0800 . There are many examples that do not have originations and arrival not at the beginning and end of a trip. You posters here really need to not just focus on end points but also points that are in between.


First. If you are "assigned" to work until 1800 in Buffalo and then meet a customer at 0800 in South Bend, you need to speak up and say that isn't reasonable. (Or at least mention that there is a good chance the LSL will be several hours late, so this "business customer" must not be all that important.)

Second, yes I am sure there are also a handful of business travelers each year who need to get from Holdrege to McCook, NE overnight who would also find Amtrak's California Zephyr more convenient than flying. 

But what about those who have to get from Janesville, WI to Des Moines, IA? Or Louisville to Tulsa? Shouldn't Amtrak serve them with a convenient overnight schedule too?

TL;DR: Yes one can always pick out specific city pairs based on Amtrak's current route map and schedule where Amtrak MIGHT compete with flying. But those are almost pretty much irrelevant in the Bigger Picture.


----------



## jruff001 (Jun 24, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> A good Amtrak advertising campaign would help ridership. NYC-Chicago should be a very busy passenger corridor with a dedicated limited stop night train.


It sounds like you are presuming there would be multiple trains per day on that route. A LOT has to happen to get that into place before advertising can happen. Good luck in your negotiations with CSX and NS.


----------



## sttom (Jun 24, 2021)

jruff001 said:


> If you want to see something like Europe's NightJet in the U.S., it will take a LOT more than a change in Amtrak's upper management. Any upper management team in Amtrak's history would have loved to have seen a NightJet concept become reality. But the structural / economic / political realities in the U.S. won't let that happen (at least not in our lifetimes), no matter who is in the upper management team.



Politics can and are changing, the question that remains to be seen is if that will have an effect on Amtrak in any way.

Amtrak's leadership is all talk as far as I'm concerned until I see results. Their 2035 "plan" shows how unimaginative they are. They can say they want a NightJet product line, but until they actually do something about it, it's talk. They could get more out of Congress if they ask and come up with a good plan. It's not like train service is particularly expensive to start. Adding what the highway trust fund needs every decade to stay solvent ontop of the $25 billion the country would get in the current plan would go a long way. And that's not even a drop in the bucket as far as our politics go.


----------



## Qapla (Jun 24, 2021)

jruff001 said:


> Oh and not to you, but LOL to those who are again suggesting that all Amtrak needs to do is have a snazzy advertising campaign to convince business travelers that it is worth their time



I never said that good advertising was ALL that is needed - but it is one of the things needed ... along with looking at people other than business travelers as a source of income - business people are not the only ones who travel


----------



## jruff001 (Jun 24, 2021)

sttom said:


> It's not like train service is particularly expensive to start.


Are you envisioning that new rights-of-way be built just for Amtrak, or are you envisioning forcing the freight railroads to host significantly more Amtrak trains and give them priority to have some semblance of being on time?

Whichever, I am curious as to how either would not be "particularly expensive." Do tell.


----------



## MARC Rider (Jun 24, 2021)

One should also remember that the financial performance of the NEC "Night Owl," aka the "Twilight Shoreliner," aka Northeast Regional 65/66/67 does not just depend on sleeping car passengers. In fact, 65/66/67 has been run successfully without sleeping cars since about 2004 or so. One important thing is that a lot of the passengers that use this train aren't going from end to end, and they have no need of sleeping car service. On the southbound end, 67 gets passengers from Philly and Baltimore who want to be in DC early, but certainly have no need to reserve a sleeping car. On the northbound end, there are folks in Providence who want to get into Boston early. They also have no need for a sleeping car. As for passengers who ride to/from New York, well, it the "city that never sleeps," so people who are riding in at that hour probably aren't sleeping, and probably don't need a sleeper.

I have some experience with the train. Aside from riding from Boston to DC for several years in the early 2010s, I was a semi-regular rider of 67 for commuting purposes, catching it when I missed my regular MARC train, but didn't want to get into the office late. While adding sleepers may be a nice way to add some financial gravy to the trains fiscal performance, they could also make some extra money by expanding the availability of business class. While I like the 2x1 club car seating, those cars only hold 18 passengers, and there were many mornings when I needed to ride 67 when the business class was sold out. 

The issue with many other proposed overnight sleeper train services is that the city pairs involved may not have the populous intermediate points that also draw the kind of quasi-commuter traffic that feeds 65/66/67. Thus, in the end, there just isn't enough support to make such a train financially viable, even if there is a market for the end-to-end overnight service.


----------



## Mailliw (Jun 24, 2021)

Couchettes are a big factor in European night trains being viable. Amtrak doesn't necessarily need to have couchettes, but they need an equivalent option in between a coach seat and a private compartment. Roomettes might be able to fill this niche if we had enough sleeping cars to lower prices.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Jun 24, 2021)

jruff001 said:


> It sounds like you are presuming there would be multiple trains per day on that route. A LOT has to happen to get that into place before advertising can happen. Good luck in your negotiations with CSX and NS.



Yes. I am saying that route should be a very busy passenger rail corridor.


----------



## Cal (Jun 24, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> Yes. I am saying that route should be a very busy passenger rail corridor.


I think that can happen, in a few hundred years!


----------



## MARC Rider (Jun 24, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> Yes. I am saying that route should be a very busy passenger rail corridor.


Even if a route becomes a "busy passenger rail corridor," the host railroads might want to clear the tracks late at night to be able to rune the freight trains they can't run during the day because it's a "busy passenger rail corridor." Even Amtrak on the NEC hosts freight trains at night, though, of course, they do manage to get 65/66/67 through, too. But the NEC has a lot of capacity that some of the freight railroads don't have.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Jun 24, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> Even if a route becomes a "busy passenger rail corridor," the host railroads might want to clear the tracks late at night to be able to rune the freight trains they can't run during the day because it's a "busy passenger rail corridor." Even Amtrak on the NEC hosts freight trains at night, though, of course, they do manage to get 65/66/67 through, too. But the NEC has a lot of capacity that some of the freight railroads don't have.



That may be true. I still believe my statement is correct. That NYC-Chicago should be a busy passenger corridor that includes night trains. 

I’m sure NS would have a problem with adding one more nyc-Chicago train as is.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Jun 24, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> That may be true. I still believe my statement is correct. That NYC-Chicago should be a busy passenger corridor that includes night trains.
> 
> I’m sure NS would have a problem with adding one more nyc-Chicago train as is.



In principle, I agree. NYC-Chicago is a very poorly planned, and underutilized market. OH politics are partially the reason though.

If the transportation politics there looked a little more like VA, we’d have a much different situation, and maybe a more rail friendly state, with routes in between some of the major cities in OH.


----------



## neroden (Jun 24, 2021)

zephyr17 said:


> Overnight business travel will never again be a major part of Amtrak's business. Overnight trains must be marketed for leisure and personal travel. Speed alone is not as important as reliability and comfort. I think Amtrak does have an opportunity what with air travel being such a dreadful experience as it currently is, and I do not think they are taking advantage of it.



Business travel is already less than half of the total travel market, and shrinking! Businesses are saying "do it by teleconference" whenever possible. So the future of the *entire* travel market is leisure / personal travel. So this is in line with the general trends.

The main reason most people don't consider overnight trains in the US, right now, is that they don't run on time. Many, many people, *even* Richard Anderson, pointed out that a reliable overnight route which had a *reliable* morning arrival would be very attractive.


----------



## Willbridge (Jun 25, 2021)

Siegmund said:


> Re "which is late more often" -- one big thing to consider is what happens when you are late.
> 
> Amtrak actually rebooks me or puts me up in a hotel. They don't debate whether the train being delayed by flooding in North Dakota was "their fault" or "the weather's fault." I didn't make my connection and I am accommodated.
> 
> ...


Weather-related air delays are one of the reasons for the _Amtrak Cascades._ But, of course, it's been over 60 years since the last overnight train ran PDX<>SEA. My dad used it for business trips for a monthly staff meeting in Seattle.

I used the Amtrak _North Star _in both directions between MSP and CHI in a heritage sleeper on business and it was comfortable but aged and with an awkward location in the Twin Cities. It combined business convenience with lots of connections in Chicago for other travelers.


----------



## VentureForth (Jun 25, 2021)

Here's a guy who wasn't converted to Amtrak after trying the Night Owl. Doubt he'd be any more enthused about the Lakeshore.


----------



## Cal (Jun 25, 2021)

VentureForth said:


> Here's a guy who wasn't converted to Amtrak after trying the Night Owl. Doubt he'd be any more enthused about the Lakeshore.



He enjoyed the Cardinal, Zephyr, and Builder.


----------



## Barb Stout (Jun 25, 2021)

Tlcooper93 said:


> flying with an old violin is sort of like roulette. Will they force me to check it, subsequently forcing me to forfeit the ticket and take a different flight?
> On a train, never an issue.


Are you a professional musician then?


----------



## Qapla (Jun 25, 2021)

Not sure if the bad nights sleep was caused by the train ... I have had bad nights of sleep in hotel beds and even my own bed.

I will agree that a roomette is quite small for two adults.


----------



## Palmetto (Jun 25, 2021)

Get rid of the cafe car attendant.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Jun 25, 2021)

Barb Stout said:


> Are you a professional musician then?


Correct; I’m a violinist.


----------



## Qapla (Jun 25, 2021)

I take it you do that full time - not just fiddle around with it


----------



## Cal (Jun 25, 2021)

Qapla said:


> I will agree that a roomette is quite small for two adults.


I describe it at being cozy


----------



## Ferroequinologist (Jun 26, 2021)

jpakala said:


> My father always took the train from Pittsburgh to NYC or sometimes Chicago, Detroit, St. Louis, Buffalo, etc. At first there were only propeller planes, flights were bumpy & very expensive. Pittsburgh's airport was way west of downtown and we were east. He'd return from NYC and get off at E. Pgh. & walk into his office building. He saved on hotel & had a Pullman roomette or duplex room (sort of like a bedroom, but for one person with 2 bedrooms at each end of the car and 12 duplex rooms in between, 1 lower, 2 upper, 2 lower, 2 upper, 2 lower, 2 upper, 1 lower). PRR had those, though NP had four on the same level below a dome. (B&O may have had a few in a dome car along with their unique two-person drawing rooms.)


This was in the 1930s or 1940s? A lot has changed since then.


----------



## Hytec (Jun 26, 2021)

I realize that my experience may be rare, if not unique.

Before I retired I routinely rode the Crescent between Slidell, LA and Alexandria, VA for meetings. I'd depart SDL on #20 at 8:00 AM and arrive ALX at 9:00 AM the next morning. A quick Metro to the office in Arlington for 10:00 meetings. Meetings usually ended by 5 PM. So, a leisurely Metro to WAS Union Station to depart on #19 at 6:30, arriving SDL at 4:30 the next afternoon. #20 and #19 were usually on time in the '80s and '90s. Never more than 30 minutes late. (That's not even close, today, sadly.)

When I first put in the travel request, the Finance Manager asked why I was taking *A* *TRAIN?*
I explained that due to airline schedules, I had to leave on a noon flight, requiring an overnight motel in Arlington. Then, again because of airline schedules, I had to overnight in Alexandria before catching a morning flight back home. Either way, I would be three days away from the office.

Though the clincher was economics, all in 1987 Dollars.
Air - $1250 R/T, Motel, 2 nights @$200/night. Total $1650.
Rail - $750 Sleeper, incl. senior ticket discount. Total $750.

His response, "Oh, have a nice trip."


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jun 26, 2021)

Hytec said:


> I realize that my experience may be rare, if not unique.
> 
> Before I retired I routinely rode the Crescent between Slidell, LA and Alexandria, VA for meetings. I'd depart SDL on #20 at 8:00 AM and arrive ALX at 9:00 AM the next morning. A quick Metro to the office in Arlington for 10:00 meetings. Meetings usually ended by 5 PM. So, a leisurely Metro to WAS Union Station to depart on #19 at 6:30, arriving SDL at 4:30 the next afternoon. #20 and #19 were usually on time in the '80s and '90s. Never more than 30 minutes late. (That's not even close, today, sadly.)
> 
> ...


I was able to do the same thing when I lived in DC and traveled the NEC Corridor Regularly on Work trips.

I was fortunate enough to be able to make my own travel arrangements.

At first I flew on the Infamous Eastern Shuttles, then discovered that I could ride the Trains cheaper and beat the Airlines times Door to Door, also returning to WAS without an extra night in a Hotel on a lot of the trips..

My favorite were the Metroliners, when still run by PRR and after Amtrak started also!

I also was able to use the Crescent and the Silver Trains on a few trips to the South, and on several occasions the Cap,LSL and several of the Western LD Trains to the NW and SW out of Chicago.


----------



## MARC Rider (Jun 26, 2021)

When I worked in Washington, pretty any trip up to New York was done by train. This wasn't unusual at all, and that's how pretty much everyone traveled. I was a little bit of an oddball, as I also rode it to Boston and Newport News (when I had business in Tidewater Virginia.) Later on, I would ride the Capitol for business trips to Ann Arbor. Aside from having to get up early to get off in Toledo, the the Ambus got me to Ann Arbor about the time to start work. Then after work, I'd have dinner with colleagues, and they'd take me to the train station to catch the Ambus back to Toledo. If it was a one--day trip, I didn't need a hotel at all. If it was multiple days, someone got me a car from the motor pool so I could drive around town. I also took the train to conferences in Chicago, and also to conferences in Tampa and Hilton Head. I'd have to arrive the day before for the conferences in Chicago and Tampa, which means I'd have to leave two days before the meeting, but I could leave Washington after work and make it to Hilton Head (Silver Meteor to Savannah, taxi to the airport, rental car to Hilton Head) and make the start of the conference. On one trip to Sacramento, I didn't like the flights being offered, so I flew non-stop to San Francisco and caught the Capitol Corridor out to Sacramento.

Those were about the only business routes that were practical for me. Anything longer was just too much time off of work.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Jun 27, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> On one trip to Sacramento, I didn't like the flights being offered, so I flew non-stop to San Francisco and caught the Capitol Corridor out to Sacramento.



I’ve done that before! Also gone Anaheim south to San Diego on the Surfliner instead of flying out of LA airports.


----------



## railiner (Jun 27, 2021)

Bob Dylan said:


> My favorite were the Metroliners, when still run by PRR and after Amtrak started also!


Just a minor correction...while the PRR ordered the Metroliner's, by the time they went into service in 1969, it was run by successor, Penn Central until Amtrak.


----------



## railiner (Jun 27, 2021)

Hytec said:


> I realize that my experience may be rare, if not unique.
> 
> Before I retired I routinely rode the Crescent between Slidell, LA and Alexandria, VA for meetings. I'd depart SDL on #20 at 8:00 AM and arrive ALX at 9:00 AM the next morning. A quick Metro to the office in Arlington for 10:00 meetings. Meetings usually ended by 5 PM. So, a leisurely Metro to WAS Union Station to depart on #19 at 6:30, arriving SDL at 4:30 the next afternoon. #20 and #19 were usually on time in the '80s and '90s. Never more than 30 minutes late. (That's not even close, today, sadly.)
> 
> ...


That worked out perfectly for you, schedule-wise.
Just a question...by 1987 dollars, those amounts seem high to me. Did you mean, adjusted for inflation to today's equivalent?


----------



## Larry H. (Jun 27, 2021)

I just saw this article about European Overnight Trains. Which are gaining popularity as well. If you look at the interiors it appears they have a clue as to what a train could, or should look like. Amtrak could take a few design clues from these.








Bed and All-Aboard! The best sleeper train journeys in the world


Get inspired by the world's best sleeper train journeys




www.yahoo.com


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jun 27, 2021)

railiner said:


> Just a minor correction...while the PRR ordered the Metroliner's, by the time they went into service in 1969, it was run by successor, Penn Central until Amtrak.


You are correct, but to me it still was PRR, just like we still have Penn Stations in NY,Baltimore and Newark!


----------



## MARC Rider (Jun 27, 2021)

Larry H. said:


> I just saw this article about European Overnight Trains. Which are gaining popularity as well. If you look at the interiors it appears they have a clue as to what a train could, or should look like. Amtrak could take a few design clues from these.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You mean Amtrak should start offering 6-berth couchettes or platzkart?

The trains in listed in the link are super luxurious tourist trains, not practical overnight transportation for the masses.


----------



## MARC Rider (Jun 27, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> When I worked in Washington, pretty any trip up to New York was done by train. This wasn't unusual at all, and that's how pretty much everyone traveled. I was a little bit of an oddball, as I also rode it to Boston and Newport News (when I had business in Tidewater Virginia.) Later on, I would ride the Capitol for business trips to Ann Arbor. Aside from having to get up early to get off in Toledo, the the Ambus got me to Ann Arbor about the time to start work. Then after work, I'd have dinner with colleagues, and they'd take me to the train station to catch the Ambus back to Toledo. If it was a one--day trip, I didn't need a hotel at all. If it was multiple days, someone got me a car from the motor pool so I could drive around town. I also took the train to conferences in Chicago, and also to conferences in Tampa and Hilton Head. I'd have to arrive the day before for the conferences in Chicago and Tampa, which means I'd have to leave two days before the meeting, but I could leave Washington after work and make it to Hilton Head (Silver Meteor to Savannah, taxi to the airport, rental car to Hilton Head) and make the start of the conference. On one trip to Sacramento, I didn't like the flights being offered, so I flew non-stop to San Francisco and caught the Capitol Corridor out to Sacramento.
> 
> Those were about the only business routes that were practical for me. Anything longer was just too much time off of work.


Another business ride I would take: I occasionally had business in Greenville, SC. The Crescent worked great -- Leave DC after work, arrive at about 5 AM, Hang out with some coffee until I was picked up. After work, spend a pleasant evening having dinner along the redeveloped main drag in Greenville, then a ride to the station for the ~11 PM northbound departure. OK, it was an Amshack, but at least you could sit inside, and there was a station agent who would tell you how late the train was. Back in DC the next mprning, and back to the office. No need to get a hotel.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jun 27, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> Another business ride I would take: I occasionally had business in Greenville, SC. The Crescent worked great -- Leave DC after work, arrive at about 5 AM, Hang out with some coffee until I was picked up. After work, spend a pleasant evening having dinner along the redeveloped main drag in Greenville, then a ride to the station for the ~11 PM northbound departure. OK, it was an Amshack, but at least you could sit inside, and there was a station agent who would tell you how late the train was. Back in DC the next mprning, and back to the office. No need to get a hotel.


Rode this route many times to visit,since my dad, who lived in Pickens, would pick me up, and take me back to the Greenville Station.( occasionaly we'd use the Clemson Station)


----------



## Qapla (Jun 27, 2021)

Sometimes I think it is not a matter that trains "are not able" to compete with flying - it is more that they are not viewed as being able to ...

It is a perception thing. Most of the arguments I have heard in favor of planes over trains dwell only on the speed of the actual travel time between point A and point B ... of course, in most cases a plane will be much faster - but then, the same can be said of comparing a plane to driving a car, yet many people drive rather that fly - why is that?

It basically comes down to a simple formula ... instead of comparing the actual time in the air as opposed to the time on the road, people consider the entire trip. They look at the convenience of leaving directly from their home and driving directly to their destination. They look at the freedom to stop when they want to. The look at the ability to carry their luggage without a specific limit to the amount or the added expense of paying for each piece of luggage they take. They look at the time it takes to get to and from the airport, the hassles of security checks - There are many other factors that come into play that lead many people to drive even though the actual time from point A to point B takes longer.

The same could be done with taking the train - if only people would quit comparing the time from point A to point B and using this as a determining factor to not consider the train - even many on this forum do that.

If Amtrak would advertise the advantages of train travel, placing emphasis on what trains DO have to offer, maybe people would be less prone to using the actual flight time vs train time as a deciding factor.

As many have tried to point out in this thread - the over all trip can be more comfortable, more relaxed, competitively priced and even quicker (or just as quick) if people would quit using point A to point B as the only thing that matters. It's obvious by the overcrowded nature of the nations highways that people are not using point A to point B time when it comes to deciding to drive rather than fly - the train should compared in the same way instead of dwelling on point A to point B time.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Jun 27, 2021)

I think a big issue is that Amtrak really can’t expand. They can’t easily add trains, and they can’t easily add capacity to existing trains.

If Amtrak could add multiple Chicago to NYC trains and advertise them, they would fill up. Same with many other LD services.


----------



## MARC Rider (Jun 27, 2021)

Another big issue with long distance trains is that the need to be run reliably on schedule. While a lot of this is freight train interference and poor dispatching by the host railroads, Amtrak's aging equipment and shortcomings in maintenance can result in delays that are due to Amtrak, not the freight railroads. Hopefully, the new long-distance Chargers will improve things, but of course there will be a period where they're going to be working the bugs out.


----------



## ShiningTimeStL (Jun 28, 2021)

This is probably what gets me the most every time I think about Amtrak. The long-distance line is essentially literally not being allowed to be the massive success that it very easily could and should be. It's the freights, who are really run by the soul sucking wraiths of Wall Street. When any measurable increase in profit margin means increased dividends for shareholders, literally nothing else matters--not even peoples' lives. The Big Freight lobby will basically fight Congress to the death to prevent Amtrak from forcing them to comply with preferential dispatching, let alone lengthen their trains and, goodness forbid, add new frequencies on some of the busiest freight corridors. However... it's really only a matter of time before PSR related BS causes a catastrophic incident--like perhaps a train full of sulfuric acid or LNG diving into a subdivision. When that happens, we can hope that the FRA will have the sense and the cajones to practically castrate the Association of American Railroads and finally put them back in their place. Maybe they'll even raise the specter of nationalization. That'll really get them going.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Jun 28, 2021)

ShiningTimeStL said:


> This is probably what gets me the most every time I think about Amtrak. The long-distance line is essentially literally not being allowed to be the massive success that it very easily could and should be. It's the freights, who are really run by the soul sucking wraiths of Wall Street. When any measurable increase in profit margin means increased dividends for shareholders, literally nothing else matters--not even peoples' lives. The Big Freight lobby will basically fight Congress to the death to prevent Amtrak from forcing them to comply with preferential dispatching, let alone lengthen their trains and, goodness forbid, add new frequencies on some of the busiest freight corridors. However... it's really only a matter of time before PSR related BS causes a catastrophic incident--like perhaps a train full of sulfuric acid or LNG diving into a subdivision. When that happens, we can hope that the FRA will have the sense and the cajones to practically castrate the Association of American Railroads and finally put them back in their place. Maybe they'll even raise the specter of nationalization. That'll really get them going.



Exactly. The mainline railroads should be run as public infrastructure with freight AND passenger lines able to buy blocks of time.

Freight trains should not be able to operate trains beyond the size of available Passing sidings, etc.


----------



## lordsigma (Jun 28, 2021)

They’re plenty competitive if you have an issue with flying or want a low stress journey. If it’s about getting there fast then obviously there’s no contest.


----------



## Qapla (Jun 28, 2021)

Too much emphasis on speed - if speed were the only issue, Interstate highways would all still be 4 lane roads instead of the mega-roads they have become.


----------



## MARC Rider (Jun 28, 2021)

lordsigma said:


> They’re plenty competitive if you have an issue with flying or want a low stress journey. If it’s about getting there fast then obviously there’s no contest.


Long-distance train trips aren't always "low stress," especially if you're travelling in coach, the coach is full, and there are poorly-behaved passengers. The lack of food options can also be a problem if you're not well prepared.


----------



## west point (Jun 28, 2021)

Amtrak needs to target potential passengers who live on the wrong side of the airport. One great example is route 128. To travel from there to say Trenton or another isolated city by air is near impossible. Push the night owl as a sleeper to be able. Can see the targeted ad saying--
" Do you live in SW Boston area. Take Amtrak from route 128 or Providence and avoid the long drive to Logan airport "

If the Crescent had suburban stations in Austell and Duluth Amtrak could make the same kind of targeted ad.
" Live north of downtown Atlanta ? Take Amtrak and avoid the terrible drive to Hartsfield ATL airport " -----------

Run those radio spots during rush hours.


----------



## sttom (Jun 29, 2021)

Qapla said:


> Sometimes I think it is not a matter that trains "are not able" to compete with flying - it is more that they are not viewed as being able to ...
> 
> It is a perception thing. Most of the arguments I have heard in favor of planes over trains dwell only on the speed of the actual travel time between point A and point B ... of course, in most cases a plane will be much faster - but then, the same can be said of comparing a plane to driving a car, yet many people drive rather that fly - why is that?
> 
> ...



Another thing that also needs to be factored in isn't just time, but distance. As I have pointed out a few different times, the average long distance trips we take are between 100 and 300 miles with respects to ground transportation. These distances are generally too short to fly and depending on the geography could lend itself to overnight trains, but mostly these trips would be day time trips.

As for length of trip timewise, the trains need to be able to let someone sleep between the two terminal stations. The selling point to businesses would be dropping at least a night off the hotel bill depending on how long someone is going to be traveling. To the individual business traveler, being able to leave from a station closer to home would be a good selling point. For example, I recently went on a 6 hour road trip that barely hit the 300 mile line. I could have flown, but driving into San Francisco would have been more painful than just driving direct. If I could have taken a train, I would have considered it.

Which isn't to say Amtrak doesn't need to 1) have more overnight trains 2) offer a more compelling product and 3) advertise them more. Trains can be successful if someone would dare run them well.


----------



## allanorn (Jul 7, 2021)

I don’t think even Nightjet promotes their trains towards business travelers. Most business travelers have their expenses paid by the client, and businesses can deduct parts of that for tax reasons as expenses. I think they’ve based their marketing strategies on tourism.

Having said that - the more I think about this, the more I think it’s really an infrastructure problem - especially for NYC-Chicago. Someone would have to solve three problems: adequate sleeper car capacity, available slots for arrivals at NY Penn/GCT and Chicago Union Station, and reliably (>90%) getting the travel time down to the 10-hour range.

19 hours on a train isn’t going to cut it for a business traveler. If I’m on business and need to get to the other city for meetings the next day, I need that train to leave mid-evening and arrive around 7am local… certainly not later than 7:30am. A 10-hour train ride should give enough scheduling flexibility to make that happen, assuming that the arrival train station has the capacity to take that train on during peak AM rush hour into the city. 

Sleeper car capacity is a capital budget problem - just order more sleeping cars after you demonstrate route viability.

The real question is what track improvements are needed to get the train to make 10-hour NYP-CHI runs at night. Does that take 125mph track most everywhere, or just incremental improvements to the 90-110 range? How much would it all cost? Factor in a couple of stops in cities for pickup/dropoff and maybe a dark-o’clock stop in Pittsburgh and/or Cleveland as well.

If you can’t get this done without any sort of actual HSR (> 150mph), it’s probably just time to build full HSR for the corridor.


----------



## Cal (Jul 7, 2021)

allanorn said:


> The real question is what track improvements are needed to get the train to make 10-hour NYP-CHI runs at night. Does that take 125mph track most everywhere, or just incremental improvements to the 90-110 range? How much would it all cost? Factor in a couple of stops in cities for pickup/dropoff and maybe a dark-o’clock stop in Pittsburgh and/or Cleveland as well.


I did some quick math, it could very well be wrong. 

If you were to make a completely straight track from New York to Chicago and make it all at 100mph, you should be able to do it in about 8 hours. However, the current routes are far from straight, so you would need to upgrade them considerable more to get in that 10 hour range.

If you lose padding you could lose about 40-60 minutes already, however if you're keeping padding you actually need it to get down to 9 hours. Which would require more upgrades.


----------



## sttom (Jul 7, 2021)

A 12 hour trip also isn't terrible for an overnight hop. The train leaving the terminal stations at 7pm for a 7am arrival wouldn't break the bank time wise. Especially if you live in a suburb around a big city and are on the opposite side of the airport. I would use such a train to get to LA if I needed to and it existed since I'm closer to an Amtrak station than I am to SFO. A 7pm departure from Sacramento would take more than an hour to get to where I live so I'd actually be leaving the station sometime after 8pm. Which even at my old 7:00-3:30 job, would leave plenty of time to get home and eat before heading to the station.


----------



## allanorn (Jul 7, 2021)

Cal said:


> If you were to make a completely straight track from New York to Chicago and make it all at 100mph, you should be able to do it in about 8 hours. However, the current routes are far from straight, so you would need to upgrade them considerable more to get in that 10 hour range.
> 
> If you lose padding you could lose about 40-60 minutes already, however if you're keeping padding you actually need it to get down to 9 hours. Which would require more upgrades.


That's why I think it's an infrastructure problem, assuming economic viability. If the current routes date back to the Interwar period (at best) or the Gilded Age (at worst), that will require a lot of route-straightening. There's probably a point at which a passenger-only HSR route starts looking palatable in place of all those upgrades (just run the night train on those tracks) - I just don't know what that point is.



sttom said:


> A 12 hour trip also isn't terrible for an overnight hop. The train leaving the terminal stations at 7pm for a 7am arrival wouldn't break the bank time wise. Especially if you live in a suburb around a big city and are on the opposite side of the airport. I would use such a train to get to LA if I needed to and it existed since I'm closer to an Amtrak station than I am to SFO. A 7pm departure from Sacramento would take more than an hour to get to where I live so I'd actually be leaving the station sometime after 8pm. Which even at my old 7:00-3:30 job, would leave plenty of time to get home and eat before heading to the station.



My back-of-the-napkin assumptions were as follows:

Business travelers generally have to make 9am meetings on time. Sometimes they can make 8am meetings if it's a reliable train and their meeting is close to the train station, or they can get a cab.
Assume 60-90 minutes from the train station to the 9am meeting location.
Assume also that 90 minutes is sufficient to make it from your previous location to the departure train station.
For Chicago-NYC, you "lose" an hour to the time zone change.
Add in some fudge-factors for platform scheduling, padding, and dwell time as needed.
You don't want to have a departure time that is too early. Our intrepid businessperson may still be working on a deal at 5pm, and leaving the office at 6pm isn't all that unheard of. A departure time right at peak PM rush may also be a problem with platform and track capacity.
The last point is why a 25% time improvement isn't helpful here. If NYC-CHI takes 14.5 hours instead of 19, a 7am arrival means you're leaving at 5:30pm from NYP, or perhaps a little earlier. (It's 3:30pm from CHI to NYP.) That's starting to crimp what can get done during the day. Anything much earlier than that starts making same-day flights to a hotel a more reasonable possibility - which defeats the purpose of an overnight train from a business proposition. My assumption thus is that overnight trains should generally run 8-ish pm to 7am (local times) or thereabouts.

So for our intrepid traveler from NYP to CHI can leave work at 6-7pm, head downtown, maybe get a decent meal, arrive at NYP at 9:30pm to board the train. Obviously you'd have to leave the Chicago office around 5pm to make it work similarly.


----------



## zephyr17 (Jul 7, 2021)

In 1961, the ultimate businessman's train, NYC's 20th Century Limited, left Grand Central Terminal at 6:00 pm, and arrived at LaSalle Stree at 9:00 am. Eastbound, it left LaSalle at 4:30 pm and arrived at GCT at 9:30 am.

The Pennsy's Broadway Limited ran exactly the same time westbound, leaving Penn Station at 6:00pm, arriving Chicago Union at 9:00 am. Eastbound, it had a 1/2 hour shorter schedule, leaving Chicago at 5:00 pm and arriving at Penn Station at 9:30 am


----------



## west point (Jul 8, 2021)

I challenge the NYP <> CHI assumptions. There might be a large contingent for intermediate stations. Detroit, Toledo, Cleveland, Erie? Buffalo. from either CHI or NYP airline service is not as convenient.


----------



## Danib62 (Jul 8, 2021)

I actually just booked a sleeper journey that schedule-wise worked out better than flying. We're travelling BBY-WAS and needed a flight that either left after 9p or arrived before 7a the next day. Nothing fit the bill but the viewliner on train #67 works perfectly! And with a companion coupon it was actually decently priced ($289 for 2).


----------



## sttom (Jul 8, 2021)

allanorn said:


> That's why I think it's an infrastructure problem, assuming economic viability. If the current routes date back to the Interwar period (at best) or the Gilded Age (at worst), that will require a lot of route-straightening. There's probably a point at which a passenger-only HSR route starts looking palatable in place of all those upgrades (just run the night train on those tracks) - I just don't know what that point is.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



My point is also getting at the notion that there are more City pairs where this works than just New York and Chicago. Also, if you're working so late with other people on a day you know you're traveling up until a 7pm departure time, that's on you for being bad at time management, not Amtrak's schedule setting abilities.


----------



## jruff001 (Jul 8, 2021)

zephyr17 said:


> In 1961, the ultimate businessman's train, NYC's 20th Century Limited, left Grand Central Terminal at 6:00 pm, and arrived at LaSalle Stree at 9:00 am. Eastbound, it left LaSalle at 4:30 pm and arrived at GCT at 9:30 am.
> 
> The Pennsy's Broadway Limited ran exactly the same time westbound, leaving Penn Station at 6:00pm, arriving Chicago Union at 9:00 am. Eastbound, it had a 1/2 hour shorter schedule, leaving Chicago at 5:00 pm and arriving at Penn Station at 9:30 am


There were not any other faster options in the heyday of the 20th Century and Broadway Limiteds.


----------



## zephyr17 (Jul 8, 2021)

jruff001 said:


> There were not any other faster options in the heyday of the 20th Century and Broadway Limiteds.


Well, by '61 (or indeed pretty much anytime after WW II) you could fly in a few hours. And business travelers by '61 were deserting in favor of the airlines in droves.


----------



## jruff001 (Jul 9, 2021)

zephyr17 said:


> Well, by '61 (or indeed pretty much anytime after WW II) you could fly in a few hours. And business travelers by '61 were deserting in favor of the airlines in droves.


Yes, that was my point. 1961 was certainly past the heyday and business travelers were deserting trains for the faster jets. Hardly any will accept 20th C / B-way Ltd travel times today.


----------



## Michigan Mom (Jul 9, 2021)

zephyr17 said:


> In 1961, the ultimate businessman's train, NYC's 20th Century Limited, left Grand Central Terminal at 6:00 pm, and arrived at LaSalle Stree at 9:00 am. Eastbound, it left LaSalle at 4:30 pm and arrived at GCT at 9:30 am.
> 
> The Pennsy's Broadway Limited ran exactly the same time westbound, leaving Penn Station at 6:00pm, arriving Chicago Union at 9:00 am. Eastbound, it had a 1/2 hour shorter schedule, leaving Chicago at 5:00 pm and arriving at Penn Station at 9:30 am



In 1961.
What has happened, why does life have less promise now.
I could not care less about billionaire space junkets, or electric car tunnels.
Why can't we have train travel options that are as good as 60 or 80 years ago?


----------



## sttom (Jul 9, 2021)

Michigan Mom said:


> In 1961.
> What has happened, why does life have less promise now.
> I could not care less about billionaire space junkets, or electric car tunnels.
> Why can't we have train travel options that are as good as 60 or 80 years ago?


We can't have good transit cause something something self driving cars.


----------



## zephyr17 (Jul 10, 2021)

Michigan Mom said:


> In 1961.
> What has happened, why does life have less promise now.
> I could not care less about billionaire space junkets, or electric car tunnels.
> Why can't we have train travel options that are as good as 60 or 80 years ago?


What happened was airlines drained away the business travel that these trains depended on. Their clientele evaporated.


----------



## railiner (Jul 10, 2021)

Michigan Mom said:


> In 1961.
> What has happened, why does life have less promise now.
> I could not care less about billionaire space junkets, or electric car tunnels.
> Why can't we have train travel options that are as good as 60 or 80 years ago?


In a 'nutshell'....you were simply born too late....


----------



## jruff001 (Jul 10, 2021)

Michigan Mom said:


> Why can't we have train travel options that are as good as 60 or 80 years ago?


Why can't I cross the country by covered wagon anymore?


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Jul 10, 2021)

jruff001 said:


> Why can't I cross the country by covered wagon anymore?



Do you feel that long distance train travel is compared to travel by covered wagon in any way?


----------



## sttom (Jul 10, 2021)

jruff001 said:


> Why can't I cross the country by covered wagon anymore?


You still can, with 90% less dysentery. You'd just have to get a horse, wagon and consult a map.


----------



## jruff001 (Jul 10, 2021)

sttom said:


> You still can, with 90% less dysentery. You'd just have to get a horse, wagon and consult a map.


Well of course I meant why isn't anyone selling such a service anymore (as I am sure you knew).

But if we are going the DIY route, why not just build your own railroad from NYC to CHI and recreate your own 20th Century Limited. Problem solved!


----------



## jruff001 (Jul 10, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> Do you feel that long distance train travel is compared to travel by covered wagon in any way?


Yes. It is about as obsolete.

But I still enjoy it.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Jul 10, 2021)

jruff001 said:


> Yes. It is about as obsolete.
> 
> But I still enjoy it.



Why is it obsolete?


----------



## MARC Rider (Jul 10, 2021)

west point said:


> I challenge the NYP <> CHI assumptions. There might be a large contingent for intermediate stations. Detroit, Toledo, Cleveland, Erie? Buffalo. from either CHI or NYP airline service is not as convenient.


I agree. A lot of my Capitol Limited trips were from Washington to Ann Arbor, which involved getting off at Toledo.


----------



## MARC Rider (Jul 10, 2021)

jruff001 said:


> Why can't I cross the country by covered wagon anymore?


Well, you can still take a stagecoach. It's just called an "intercity motor coach."


----------



## MARC Rider (Jul 10, 2021)

jruff001 said:


> Well of course I meant why isn't anyone selling such a service anymore (as I am sure you knew).


Nobody ever "sold" a covered wagon service. You bought your own wagon and drove it yourself. (Actually, I think most of the passengers walked, as that was more comfortable than riding in a wagon on rutted trails without springs or shock absorbers.) Okay, I guess you had to pay to join a wagon train with a guide and protection from bandits and also Indians who were justifiably ticked off at the white intruders on their lands.

But nowadays, you can still drive your own vehicle coast to coast. And the roads are a lot better. Not to mention the food options along the way. And the vehicles are faster and more reliable, and are even air conditioned.


----------



## MARC Rider (Jul 10, 2021)

jruff001 said:


> Yes. It is about as obsolete.
> 
> But I still enjoy it.


Long distance trains aren't "obsolete," it's just that they don't need to be as fast as they used to be for the service they provide. Actually, back in the good old days, most long-distance trains weren't as fast as the few super express trains for the business traveler or the rich. Congress supports the service as a transportation alternative to connect small towns in rural areas with larger towns and cities. The long distance travelers are not the primary user target, but, of course, they provide some financial gravy to help support the train's operation. None of these people need super fast service, although it might help to at least have a consistent 50 mph end-to-end average speed.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Jul 10, 2021)

jruff001 said:


> Yes. It is about as obsolete.
> 
> But I still enjoy it.



such a blanket statement is not accurate. For most other countries around the world (even those with large airline/airport infrastructure), long distance, reliable train travel is available.

moreover, long distance trains serve intermediate destinations (as stated over and over again if you read).

the “trains are obsolete argument” holds about as much weight as the “airplanes are obsolete” argument. No one would fly as much if we were stuck flying Lockheed Constellations everywhere. If the tech was never further developed (much the way American trains were not), airplanes would not be dominant.

amtrak currently runs the equivalent of Lockheed Constellations for their LD fleet while the rest of the world (China, Europe and Japan especially) has progressed to the equivalent of 747’s and beyond.


----------



## Qapla (Jul 10, 2021)

Since cars and highways are nowhere near as fast as planes ... I guess roads and cars are obsolete, too


----------



## Michigan Mom (Jul 10, 2021)

jruff001 said:


> Why can't I cross the country by covered wagon anymore?





jruff001 said:


> Why can't I cross the country by covered wagon anymore?



Why do you think that was a clever comment?


----------



## jloewen (Jul 11, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> Long distance trains aren't "obsolete," it's just that they don't need to be as fast as they used to be for the service they provide. Actually, back in the good old days, most long-distance trains weren't as fast as the few super express trains for the business traveler or the rich. Congress supports the service as a transportation alternative to connect small towns in rural areas with larger towns and cities. The long distance travelers are not the primary user target, but, of course, they provide some financial gravy to help support the train's operation. None of these people need super fast service, although it might help to at least have a consistent 50 mph end-to-end average speed.


Darn it, here's the lack of vision problem. Amtrak IS competitive with air travel for business in several places, IF it were reliably on time. And if it went as fast as, say, the Magnolia Star on the ICRR in 1970, it would be MORE competitive with air travel. Consider: I was on the Magnolia Star when it was traveling at between 110 and 115MPH between Du Quoin and Mattoon (IL). Makin' up time. That portion of the trip was SCHEDULED at 81 MPH incl. stops. OK, now apply that running speed, achievable routinely in 1970, to, say, the Capitol Limited. Voila! Even if parts of the journey cannot support 81 MPH with stops, still we would have a train that left WAS just in time for dinner, say 5:05PM, reached Pittsburgh well before 11PM, and pulled in to Union Station at 7AM. The ONLY way to get to the Loop at 7AM by flying requires going out to one of 3 airports at say 5:05PM, getting to the airport at 6:05PM (DCA, the others take longer), going thru security by 6:25PM, having the required time to spare (because security can foul up and take much longer), eating dinner at a fairly bad and fairly expensive restaurant, then taking a plane at say 8:55PM, arriving at O'Hare at 9:55PM CDT, taking CTA (or a taxi or limo or ...) at 10:20PM, arriving at hotel at say 11:15PM local time.... You get the idea. Indeed, the Capitol Ltd. is ALREADY competitive with air to Chicago, to NW IN (S Bend, etc.), and even Milwaukee. 
And if I'm wrong about the restaurant, DO tell me where to eat at DCA! I'm open for ideas!


----------



## jruff001 (Jul 11, 2021)

Tlcooper93 said:


> such a blanket statement is not accurate. For most other countries around the world (even those with large airline/airport infrastructure), long distance, reliable train travel is available.


Sorry I wasn't clear (even though this is the "Amtrak Rail Discussion" sub-forum, and there is a different sub-forum for a discussion of international rail). I was talking about Amtrak, in the U.S., today.


----------



## MARC Rider (Jul 11, 2021)

jloewen said:


> Darn it, here's the lack of vision problem. Amtrak IS competitive with air travel for business in several places,


OK, maybe between New York and Washington, and also between LA and San Francisco if they ever finish CAHSR, and the Midwest corridors if they improve the speeds and reliability. According the Amtrak, the Cascades actually compete with air travel between Portland and Seattle, which is a bit of a mystery to me, although these two cities are so close together, why would anyone want to fly the distance. And maybe a few more city pairs, and also the trains may be competitive in some smaller markets where there isn't good air service and multiple connections are needed. But the point is that in most of these cases, these would be day trains. 

As far as overnight services, there may be room to build some market for business travelers, but it's always going to be a niche market. I say this as someone who, indeed, has traveled overnight on Amtrak for business. The vast majority of travelers, if presented with a choice of 4-5 hours of dealing with getting to the airport, airport formalities, a flight of 1-2 hours, and the airport stuff on the other end, will chose that over 9-10 hours in a sleeping car, no matter how nice it is and how good the service they get. And most people for these sort of short trips don't need any sort of food service, they'll either eat before the go to the airport or when they get into town.

Let's face it, the days of the fast streamliners for overnight business trips are over and have been for half a century. While it might be possible to provide such service, it's always going to be a much lower priority for Amtrak and its paymasters (i.e. the states and Congress). I'm satisfied that we can still enjoy at least a simulacrum of old-style long-distance train travel on a few selected routes. But the future of passenger rail is really for shorter distances, going faster and more frequently between large population centers.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Jul 11, 2021)

jruff001 said:


> Sorry I wasn't clear (even though this is the "Amtrak Rail Discussion" sub-forum, and there is a different sub-forum for a discussion of international rail). I was talking about Amtrak, in the U.S., today.



I’m well aware of the sub-divisions of the forum. It is up to you to make yourself clear, as all forums are very loosely bound to their respective general topics.


----------



## sttom (Jul 11, 2021)

jruff001 said:


> Well of course I meant why isn't anyone selling such a service anymore (as I am sure you knew).
> 
> But if we are going the DIY route, why not just build your own railroad from NYC to CHI and recreate your own 20th Century Limited. Problem solved!


People bought or made their own wagon back then, it's not like they strolled down to Enterprise to rent one. Also, roads are generally owned by the public, the railways largely aren't. 



jruff001 said:


> Yes. It is about as obsolete.
> 
> But I still enjoy it.



Railways are not obselete, shoving 90% of trips into cars is not healthy. Expanding highways is like solving obesity by loosening your belt. You know the "modern" technology. Our rail system is deficient, not obselete.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Jul 11, 2021)

sttom said:


> Railways are not obselete, shoving 90% of trips into cars is not healthy. Expanding highways is like solving obesity by loosening your belt. You know the "modern" technology. Our rail system is deficient, not obselete.



Air travel is also super impractical and terrible for the environment for short jumps.


----------



## jiml (Jul 11, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> Air travel is also super impractical and terrible for the environment for short jumps.


An important observation that often gets overlooked.


----------



## MARC Rider (Jul 11, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> Air travel is also super impractical and terrible for the environment for short jumps.


Not just short jump. Long distance air travel might be practical in the short term, but it's just as bad for the environment and has the added "benefit" of facilitating the worldwide spread of disease. A virus can now travel to anywhere on the planet in less than 24 hours.


----------



## toddinde (Jul 11, 2021)

jruff001 said:


> Why can't I cross the country by covered wagon anymore?


That is an absurd response because overnight trains are thriving in Europe and are very competitive with flying. You’re response indicates a 1950s mentality that isn’t reflective of the population growth in America and the inability of highways and our aviation system to keep pace. It’s not possible for them to do so at a reasonable cost. Night trains don’t require the huge investment in super high speed rail. They can provide a pleasant and convenient way to travel between cities reasonably spaced apart. You’re living in the past. Maybe that’s why you used the covered wagon analogy.


----------



## toddinde (Jul 11, 2021)

sttom said:


> People bought or made their own wagon back then, it's not like they strolled down to Enterprise to rent one. Also, roads are generally owned by the public, the railways largely aren't.
> 
> 
> 
> Railways are not obselete, shoving 90% of trips into cars is not healthy. Expanding highways is like solving obesity by loosening your belt. You know the "modern" technology. Our rail system is deficient, not obselete.


Absolutely right. The US continues to fall further and further behind its peer competitors because of its fixation on highways and aviation. Our quality of life is much lower, and our detrimental environmental impact much greater, because of our obsolete approach to transportation. We’re stuck in the ‘70s while the world races past us.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Jul 11, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> Not just short jump. Long distance air travel might be practical in the short term, but it's just as bad for the environment and has the added "benefit" of facilitating the worldwide spread of disease. A virus can now travel to anywhere on the planet in less than 24 hours.



The short haul flight industry needs to end...
It really only exists to the level it does in this country alone. If we are serious about climate, we have to change that.



toddinde said:


> That is an absurd response because overnight trains are thriving in Europe and are very competitive with flying. You’re response indicates a 1950s mentality that isn’t reflective of the population growth in America and the inability of highways and our aviation system to keep pace. It’s not possible for them to do so at a reasonable cost. Night trains don’t require the huge investment in super high speed rail. They can provide a pleasant and convenient way to travel between cities reasonably spaced apart. You’re living in the past. Maybe that’s why you used the covered wagon analogy.



Put better than I could have said it!


----------



## bms (Jul 11, 2021)

toddinde said:


> That is an absurd response because overnight trains are thriving in Europe and are very competitive with flying. You’re response indicates a 1950s mentality that isn’t reflective of the population growth in America and the inability of highways and our aviation system to keep pace. It’s not possible for them to do so at a reasonable cost. Night trains don’t require the huge investment in super high speed rail. They can provide a pleasant and convenient way to travel between cities reasonably spaced apart. You’re living in the past. Maybe that’s why you used the covered wagon analogy.



I feel like the existence of High Speed Rail elsewhere is hurting our progress in the U.S. at this point. Rather than making realistic plans to add service, governments would rather spend tax money on paper studies of some 200 mph train that has zero chance of being built. High Speed Rail supposedly makes 79-mph service obsolete, but it doesn't exist in our country, it's just a straw man that's used as an excuse to do nothing.


----------



## MARC Rider (Jul 11, 2021)

Tlcooper93 said:


> The short haul flight industry needs to end...
> It really only exists to the level it does in this country alone. If we are serious about climate, we have to change that.



Actually, Isn't there quite a bit of short haul flying in Europe?
When I've done it, it's mostly to connect to international flights at JFK. I could see taking Amtrak to international flights in Newark, as there's a train station at the airport, but getting from Penn Station to JFK is rather inconvenient, requiring a 2 seat ride on local transit. Much more convenient to just check my bags at BWI, fly into JFK and connect to the overseas flight.


----------



## jiml (Jul 11, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> Actually, Isn't there quite a bit of short haul flying in Europe?


France has already banned flights that could be easily completed by train and other EU nations are expected to follow:





__





France Will Ban Short Flights That Could Be Replaced By a Train Trip







e360.yale.edu


----------



## MARC Rider (Jul 11, 2021)

bms said:


> I feel like the existence of High Speed Rail elsewhere is hurting our progress in the U.S. at this point. Rather than making realistic plans to add service, governments would rather spend tax money on paper studies of some 200 mph train that has zero chance of being built. High Speed Rail supposedly makes 79-mph service obsolete, but it doesn't exist in our country, it's just a straw man that's used as an excuse to do nothing.


I really wish people would stop talking about "200 mph trains" and "79 mph trains." The speedometer on my car tops at 140 mph, which suggests that I could drive it that fast, but, in reality, I've never ever done so. Aside from the fact I'd get the mother of all speeding tickets, I don't think there's a single road in this country outside of a NASCAR track that's engineered to allow driving that fast. And even on journeys that are mostly on roads with speed limits of 60-70 mph, I consider myself lucky if my average point to point speed is 50 mph.

The Acela is supposed to be a "135 mph" train between Washington and New York. Actually, the end-to-end average speed is more like 80 mph, which is pretty respectable. Between New York and Boston, it's supposed to be a "150 mph train," but the end-to-end average speed is closer to 70 mph (thanks to the State of Connecticut and Metro-North). 

I don't have the performance figures of the Euro and Asian HSRs off the top of my head, but I think that a lot of those "200 mph trains" actually have end-to-send speeds more like 100 mph. That's faster than the Acela, and being able to do that consistently would cut the Washington-New York travel time by 30 minutes, which would make it even more competitive speed-wise with flying. However, even under the current schedule, Amtrak service (including the Northeast Regionals) competes very well with flying. Actually, the current performance is pretty impressive, considering that the trains run on aging infrastructure, some of which was built right after the Civil War.

Rail advocates and politicians should stop yapping about the potential top speed of the trains, which might only occur on a few miles of the route, and focus on total travel time or point-to-point average speed and the frequency of service. That's what makes a train service convenient and competitive.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Jul 11, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> from Penn Station to JFK is rather inconvenient, requiring a 2 seat ride on local transit.



Are you counting the air-train as part of the 2 seat ride?


----------



## MARC Rider (Jul 11, 2021)

jiml said:


> France has already banned flights that could be easily completed by train and other EU nations are expected to follow:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


OK, but it hasn't happened yet. And so far, it's only France that has definitely announced this, and also only for distances that can be done by train in 2 1/2 hours or less. If applied to the US, that means that Washington-New York flights would continue.


----------



## MARC Rider (Jul 11, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> Are you counting the air-train as part of the 2 seat ride?


For $7.75 I sure am. 
Seat 1 - Subway or LIRR to Air Train
Seat 2 -- Air train to terminal


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Jul 11, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> OK, but it hasn't happened yet. And so far, it's only France that has definitely announced this, and also only for distances that can be done by train in 2 1/2 hours or less. If applied to the US, that means that Washington-New York flights would continue.



Europe and Asia don’t have even close the short haul market that America has.

In terms of flights under nautical 100 miles, America has a dominant market, with hundreds per day. In the 100-300 nautical mile market, America has an egregious number. Granted, many are for connections, but there are a fair amount that are not...

I’m about to take one tomorrow because it’s my only option of transportation. Worse, is it’s a government subsidized flight that makes money even if it takes off empty.

Cape Air KBHB - KBOS


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Jul 11, 2021)

The USA's Ridiculously Short Routes


The recently published ‘Busiest Routes 2020’ report, compiled by travel data provider OAG, is a comprehensive investigation into the…




www.google.com





Just check out some of these flights, many flying over 10 flights a day between the city pairs.


----------



## allanorn (Jul 11, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> OK, but it hasn't happened yet. And so far, it's only France that has definitely announced this, and also only for distances that can be done by train in 2 1/2 hours or less. If applied to the US, that means that Washington-New York flights would continue.



I believe Austrian Airlines will now need to shift some short-haul flights to rail as part of a bailout. The key one is Salzburg to Vienna. (CNN coverage)


----------



## west point (Jul 11, 2021)

Marc rider: You IMO are on the right track (pun). It is not necessary to make short segments very HSR. Just get rid of the slow(er) sections. For example bridges. Portal is now 60 MPH with the new Portal North I believe will be planned for 90. That will save probably 1 minute. 

Now the 3 bridges in MD will save 6 minutes total. Not much but there will no longer be delays for bridge openings or worse failure to close. Amtrak seems to have some recovery time built in for these problems.

Now the slow alignment problems on the NEC are worse. Such as the many slower spots Newark - North PHL. Also south of PHL- WASH. Just getting those spots to an average of 100 MPH would reduce NYP <> WASH to under 2 hours,

How does this apply off Amtrak owner ? Just get freight RRs to eliminate their slows to a max 60 - 80 MPH. Then PTC max of 90 would prevail. Then Amtrak can beat any driver times. As well 3 hour train times will eliminate much of the air travel of less than 200 miles. That is only on operating train routes. 

Night trips n sleeper would enable sleepers any where from 300 miles to 500 miles and a few to 600 miles at 10 hours travel.


----------



## bms (Jul 12, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> I don't have the performance figures of the Euro and Asian HSRs off the top of my head, but I think that a lot of those "200 mph trains" actually have end-to-send speeds more like 100 mph.



Oh you're right, but American governments have been paying for studies that actually claim 200 mph as an average. For example, a 2019 study claims that a Cleveland to Chicago hyperloop could be built under or over Lake Erie with a 32-minute travel time. There's zero chance of that happening, the study was done only because it's an interesting thing to study, but it .


----------



## nendee (Jul 12, 2021)

Overnight trains are not successful anywhere in the world for travel other than tourism.
Simply put, for business or necessity travel, I want to be in my OWN bed, home with my family or in my environment - as long as possible. I’m certainly not doing an overnight when I can fly for 1/4 the time.
That said, for trips UNDER 4 hours, if I can have my travel time within 45 minutes of flight time, train is a viable option. (Less airport/security time, train stations in city hubs as opposed to remote airport)


----------



## nendee (Jul 12, 2021)

This last week we were in LA for a vacation. On Thursday we took an UBER to the airport for our 9:25 red eye return flight to east coast. The flight was delayed, delayed, then cancelled. We ended up spending the night in the airport and catching a 2:30pm next day flight. Total time lost due to flight cancel was 20 hours. And that STILL was preferred over train travel time.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Jul 12, 2021)

nendee said:


> Overnight trains are not successful anywhere in the world for travel other than tourism.


Unequivocally false.

just a pretty untrue blanket statement.
I use the overnight train from Boston to DC all the time for business, and it is one of the most well patronized trains in Amtrak. Are all of the passengers in the whole train leisure?

Blanket statements making dubious claims aren’t really helpful. There is a lot of gray in this stuff.

There is a whole documentary about crowded Chinese night trains where they interview a guy who works in Shanghai for buisness. He takes the overnight train there, and the fast train back to Beijing.

I’ll try to find the video for you to have some proof for what I say.


----------



## nendee (Jul 12, 2021)

I’ll keep going. My mom lives in NW Indiana and I help her to Dr appts when sister needs a break). I’m suburb of NYC. I can wake up at 4:30 am, catch an UBER ($75) to the airport (40 minutes that early), hit the 6:30am to OHare (245 RT) land in 2 hrs, catch the bus (can also take an UBER) to NW Indiana (1.5 hours with traffic during rush hour - being conservative) and have coffee with her at the kitchen table at 10am (9am CST). Cost and time are drastically improved. It’s a no brainer. 

I mean, even for business I’d fly in by 9am and simply leave after 5pm and be back in my own bed by 11pm. It’s just a long work day. 
All that said, let’s be frank here. I HAVE taken the train. (Never for business, I’m a VP and would get fired for recommending an overnight train - efficiency and cost savings are my job). But to see mom or visit where I had time, I love being on and taking an overnight train. So overnight trains are literally for train fans. The cost and time are just incredibly high to think anyone in a sleeper is doing it because it made the most sense. They are doing it for the same reason all of us do - the love of it.
I will however say that the DC to Orlando car train IS a viable service option. I have to believe it’s their most popular and I wouldn’t be surprised if behind closed doors Amtrak wishes they could cut all overnights (except that one) - and use that energy to improve < 5 hour station to station travel.


----------



## nendee (Jul 12, 2021)

Tlcooper93 said:


> Unequivocally false.
> 
> just a pretty untrue blanket statement.
> I use the overnight train from Boston to DC all the time for business, and it is one of the most well patronized trains in Amtrak. Are all of the passengers in the whole train leisure?
> ...



Why not just fly in (it’s like a hop flight) - and fly back the same day? Cost, efficiency and family time are all winners by flying. If your reasoning is “I love trains” then that’s a great reason and one we all share. Speaking of which, I’m going to try that overnight looks like fun. The sleeper is 289 - not bad at all. How’s food, service? Cheers!


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Jul 12, 2021)

nendee said:


> I’ll keep going. My mom lives in NW Indiana and I help her to Dr appts when sister needs a break). I’m suburb of NYC. I can wake up at 4:30 am, catch an UBER ($75) to the airport (40 minutes that early), hit the 6:30am to OHare (245 RT) land in 2 hrs, catch the bus (can also take an UBER) to NW Indiana (1.5 hours with traffic during rush hour - being conservative) and have coffee with her at the kitchen table at 10am (9am CST). Cost and time are drastically improved. It’s a no brainer.
> 
> I mean, even for business I’d fly in by 9am and simply leave after 5pm and be back in my own bed by 11pm. It’s just a long work day.
> All that said, let’s be frank here. I HAVE taken the train. (Never for business, I’m a VP and would get fired for recommending an overnight train - efficiency and cost savings are my job). But to see mom or visit where I had time, I love being on and taking an overnight train. So overnight trains are literally for train fans. The cost and time are just incredibly high to think anyone in a sleeper is doing it because it made the most sense. They are doing it for the same reason all of us do - the love of it.
> I will however say that the DC to Orlando car train IS a viable service option. I have to believe it’s their most popular and I wouldn’t be surprised if behind closed doors Amtrak wishes they could cut all overnights (except that one) - and use that energy to improve < 5 hour station to station travel.



I would encourage you to not use personal anecdotes for stating “truths” about trends in train travel. They really mean nothing. I only use the Night Owl reference because I have taken the train frequently for business (even before I became a train nerd) and know it’s trends. 

Your original statement said “anywhere in the world,” and again, that is absolutely false.

The most popular and patronized overnight train in Amtrak is NE Regional 65, 66, 67, and it was often full even before they added the sleeper car in April. It’s cost competitive with flying (even with a private room) especially when factoring the cost of a hotel. In coach, it’s one of the cheapest ways to get from Boston to DC. Keep in mind that not everyone pays for a sleeper, so you can snag a night train for under $50 (currently offering $35 one month out).

All you’ve mentioned so far are your own personal preferences, not actual trends or proof for backing up your original dubious claim of “not viable anywhere in the world.”

Sorry for the strong response back. But that’s what we do here: discuss things with passion!

Service on the night owl is great (for Amtrak). Food sucks, but hey, nobody takes eastern trains for the food.

EDIT: I noticed you’re relatively new. Welcome!


----------



## MARC Rider (Jul 12, 2021)

nendee said:


> This last week we were in LA for a vacation. On Thursday we took an UBER to the airport for our 9:25 red eye return flight to east coast. The flight was delayed, delayed, then cancelled. We ended up spending the night in the airport and catching a 2:30pm next day flight. Total time lost due to flight cancel was 20 hours. And that STILL was preferred over train travel time.


My brother once took three days to fly from Chicago to Washington. Summer thunderstorms kept cancelling the flights, and he was sent home to wait for a flight the next day.
I once took almost 24 hours to fly from Baltimore to Reno. We actually got in the air, but a mechanical problem forced us to return, and by the time we landed, there were no connections left that day, so they sent us home, and sent us out the next day.


----------



## MARC Rider (Jul 12, 2021)

Tlcooper93 said:


> I would encourage you to not use personal anecdotes for stating “truths” about trends in train travel. They really mean nothing. I only use the Night Owl reference because I have taken the train frequently for business (even before I became a train nerd) and know it’s trends.
> 
> Your original statement said “anywhere in the world,” and again, that is absolutely false.
> 
> ...


The big question for the US, is whether there are any other routes where the Night Owl (65/66/67) could be replicated. And even the successful Night Owl only carries a small fraction of the total Boston - Washington passenger traffic. Even the day trains tend to empty out in New York, and only a small percentage of the total NEC traffic is doing BOS - WAS. I also wonder whether they could fill set-out sleepers in New York, a service they used to have called the "Executive Sleeper."


----------



## MARC Rider (Jul 12, 2021)

west point said:


> Marc rider: You IMO are on the right track (pun). It is not necessary to make short segments very HSR. Just get rid of the slow(er) sections. For example bridges. Portal is now 60 MPH with the new Portal North I believe will be planned for 90. That will save probably 1 minute.
> 
> Now the 3 bridges in MD will save 6 minutes total. Not much but there will no longer be delays for bridge openings or worse failure to close. Amtrak seems to have some recovery time built in for these problems.
> 
> ...


Another cause of slowness is heat restrictions. Last week on the NEC, the Acela on my morning trip did it's usual 125 mph max on the stretch I ride, but the afternoon ride back, top speed was limited to 100 mph (more like 95) because it was a very hot day, and the temps were in the 90s. Some of the freight railroads are even worse about heat restrictions, and do stuff like limit speeds to 30 mph when it gets really hot. Considering that "really hot" temperatures are going to become more common, that's something that needs to be addressed for the rail industry in general.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Jul 12, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> Another cause of slowness is heat restrictions. Last week on the NEC, the Acela on my morning trip did it's usual 125 mph max on the stretch I ride, but the afternoon ride back, top speed was limited to 100 mph (more like 95) because it was a very hot day, and the temps were in the 90s. Some of the freight railroads are even worse about heat restrictions, and do stuff like limit speeds to 30 mph when it gets really hot. Considering that "really hot" temperatures are going to become more common, that's something that needs to be addressed for the rail industry in general.



125 is pretty good!
during the heat wave on June 29th, there was a 100mph cap. The Acela was slower than a NE regional with an hour late arrival at SS.

Italy (among other hot rail-faring nations) sprays cool water on their tracks as well as paints them white to keep it cool.


----------



## MARC Rider (Jul 12, 2021)

Tlcooper93 said:


> 125 is pretty good!


Well, it wasn't hot in the morning, and on that segment, the Acela never goes above 125 anyway.


----------



## jruff001 (Jul 12, 2021)

Tlcooper93 said:


> I would encourage you to not use personal anecdotes for stating “truths” about trends in train travel. They really mean nothing. I only use the Night Owl reference because I have taken the train frequently for business (even before I became a train nerd) and know it’s trends.


You can use your personal anecdotes about the Night Owl as "proof" of a trend, but other posters can't use theirs?


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Jul 12, 2021)

jruff001 said:


> You can use your personal anecdotes about the Night Owl as "proof" of a trend, but other posters can't use theirs?



You’re making a false equivalency. There’s a difference between using an anecdote to make a worldwide claim, and using an anecdote as a single data point against a worldwide claim (therefore revealing the issue with the claim in the first place). In this case, it was a question of usage and purpose behind an anecdote, not simply using one per say. 

A train I take twice a month and often look up the numbers on does provide me some hard data. I frequently look up it’s load factor. His proof for his original claim was a round about single story not suggesting a trend.

But yes, I suppose it’s a little unfair of me.


----------



## Exvalley (Jul 12, 2021)

zephyr17 said:


> What happened was airlines drained away the business travel that these trains depended on. Their clientele evaporated.



Let's be fair here. The airlines provided a service. Consumers are the ones who made the choice - and they chose what they preferred. You can't fault the airlines for giving the consumer what they wanted.



west point said:


> It is not necessary to make short segments very HSR. Just get rid of the slow(er) sections.



Agreed! I rode a Northeast Regional for the first time in years this past weekend. One of the things that surprised me the most was how long it took to travel between Pelham and Penn Station. I know that there is no easy answer, but that long loop through Astoria at a not-so-fast speed seemed to be incredibly inefficient.


----------



## tonys96 (Jul 12, 2021)

A single rider's experience is not the factual situation of "everyone" else. 
I found a dead mouse in my garage last week. Does that mean everyone else in the world has dead nice in their garage? Of course not.
It does mean that I probably have a few more live ones out there, though, unfortunately. Hello hardware store for some mouse traps.


----------



## jruff001 (Jul 12, 2021)

Tlcooper93 said:


> A train I take twice a month and often look up the numbers on does provide me some hard data. I frequently look up it’s load factor. His proof for his original claim was a round about single story not suggesting a trend.


What data do you have access to that shows the ratio of business to leisure travelers on the Night Owl (or whatever it is you are using to claim there are a lot of business travelers on the Night Owl)?


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Jul 12, 2021)

jruff001 said:


> What data do you have access to that shows the ratio of business to leisure travelers on the Night Owl (or whatever it is you are using to claim there are a lot of business travelers on the Night Owl)?



You didn’t read any of my posts very carefully, so I’m not sure why I should entertain a reply...

I never stated that there were a lot of business travelers on the Night Owl. I only stated that I use it for business, and that it is a well patronized train, probably not exclusively used for leisure (the claim I was contesting was “night trains worldwide only work for tourism”). There’s a bunch of reasons people travel outside of leisure and business... to suggest that all 400 passengers on the Night Owl are tourists is highly unlikely (and incorrect if I’m on the train...). Around the world, especially in China, the original claim is flat out wrong. 

It is very easy to find the average load factor of all Amtrak trains. Just do 5 minutes of research.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Jul 12, 2021)

I’ve rarely ridden a long distance / overnight train where I didn’t meet someone who was traveling for “non-leisure” purposes. This includes the Canadian and even Iowa Pacific’s Pullman service where one of my fellow travelers was an IT guy who used the city of New Orleans regularly and when he saw the Pullman was running a special he booked it instead of his normal roomette.


----------



## Trogdor (Jul 12, 2021)

nendee said:


> This last week we were in LA for a vacation. On Thursday we took an UBER to the airport for our 9:25 red eye return flight to east coast. The flight was delayed, delayed, then cancelled. We ended up spending the night in the airport and catching a 2:30pm next day flight. Total time lost due to flight cancel was 20 hours. And that STILL was preferred over train travel time.



What does this have to do with the topic at hand? Nobody in this thread ever claimed a three-night, coast-to-coast LD train was time-competitive with flying.


----------



## jruff001 (Jul 12, 2021)

Tlcooper93 said:


> You didn’t read any of my posts very carefully, so I’m not sure why I should entertain a reply...
> 
> I never stated that there were a lot of business travelers on the Night Owl. I only stated that I use it for business, and that it is a well patronized train, probably not exclusively used for leisure (the claim I was contesting was “night trains worldwide only work for tourism”).


You are right; I did mis-read your post. My apologies.



> It is very easy to find the average load factor of all Amtrak trains. Just do 5 minutes of research.


Yes I know that. I was wondering if there was data that showed whether the purpose of someone's trip was business or leisure, and if so what that is based on.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Jul 12, 2021)

jruff001 said:


> Yes I know that. I was wondering if there was data that showed whether the purpose of someone's trip was business or leisure, and if so what that is based on.



That data doesn’t exist for flights either.


----------



## jruff001 (Jul 12, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> That data doesn’t exist for flights either.


I don't know, I have gotten surveys from airlines after flights and been asked what the purpose of my trip was. (Maybe Amtrak does this too but I don't remember getting one of those, unless they are caught in a spam filter.) Of course the results would be proprietary and so not publicly available.

Also I think you can _sorta_ extrapolate with flights based on fare and travel patterns. There is a good chance that someone flying into a city Tuesday and leaving within the next day or so without staying over the weekend, and who bought an expensive ticket not too far in advance of departure, is likely on a business trip (or a family emergency, but that would be much rarer). And someone flying somewhere for a week or two over a weekend is likely traveling for leisure - remember the old "Saturday Night Stay" rule. There is a good chance a group of four going to Orlando for a week is a family on vacation, etc.

Yes I know that is far from perfect but airlines certainly target who they think is traveling on business and make those fares higher since it is likely being paid by OPM (Other People's Money - i.e., the client or employer) and not the traveler.


----------



## MARC Rider (Jul 12, 2021)

jruff001 said:


> Yes I know that is far from perfect but airlines certainly target who they think is traveling on business and make those fares higher since it is likely being paid by OPM (Other People's Money - i.e., the client or employer) and not the traveler.


I will say that when I used to ride overnight trains for business purposes, I got a lot of extra scrutiny. After a while, I just started having them reimburse me for the coach fare only, and I would pay the sleeper accommodation charges out of my own pocket. Also, our travel systems couldn't really handle Amtrak travel outside of the Northeast Corridor (where it was actually the mandated form of travel.) When I filled out reimbursement vouchers, I had to designate my Amtrak rides as "public transportation." I hope it's been long enough that some auditor doesn't come out of the blue to me in retirement and start asking me about a 2012 trip I took on the Silver Star, or something.  

Also, while there are cult fanatics like me who ride the long distance trains for business (there was even once an article about it in the Washington Post), the vast majority of Amtrak's long-distance riders are probably not doing so.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Jul 12, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> Also, while there are cult fanatics like me who ride the long distance trains for business (there was even once an article about it in the Washington Post), the vast majority of Amtrak's long-distance riders are probably not doing so.



Yeah I was questioned about my Amtrak trips as well... with one management company it was just easier to take the flight they wanted to book me on. 

While the typical Amtrak LD is not filled with business travelers it’s also not filled with tourists and “experiential” travelers. It’s a pretty big mix of people traveling for all different reasons.


----------



## Qapla (Jul 12, 2021)

The problem/confusion comes when people only look at "sleepers" ... coach is often filled with people using Amtrak as "transportation" not because they are on a business trip or a vacation.


----------



## jruff001 (Jul 12, 2021)

I don't know how my company would react to me traveling Amtrak for a business trip since it takes so long and sleepers are expensive. I travel quite a bit for work but have never been able to coordinate those trips with Amtrak's schedules for anything that even remotely makes any sense, and I have zero desire to spend PTO days (or weekends) (or travel overnight in coach) on what is essentially business travel, so I have never even asked.


----------



## zephyr17 (Jul 12, 2021)

As noted in a prior post, I was able to use Amtrak twice for long distance business trips. Both required some arm wrestling with finance, both required that I pay the accommodation charge myself, and both required use of some PTO. They were at two separate companies

Most companies are not set up for overnight rail business travel and it can be a challenge to navigate it. You have to be quite motivated to take it on. Even when successful, it usually imposes costs in terms of unreimbursed expenses and personal time.

Those trips represent a very small exception in my own travel on business. I almost always just flew.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Jul 12, 2021)

jruff001 said:


> I don't know how my company would react to me traveling Amtrak for a business trip since it takes so long and sleepers are expensive. I travel quite a bit for work but have never been able to coordinate those trips with Amtrak's schedules for anything that even remotely makes any sense, and I have zero desire to spend PTO days (or weekends) (or travel overnight in coach) on what is essentially business travel, so I have never even asked.



I used to get a set travel stipend that was the same amount the plane ticket they booked for my coworkers was. That would usually cover the trip. Some would be a little less, some a little more so it would all even out.

When a new manager wouldn’t give me the stipend I asked to be booked Southwest, that way I could cancel the southwest ticket, keep that amount, and then travel however I wanted.


----------



## jruff001 (Jul 12, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> I used to get a set travel stipend that was the same amount the plane ticket they booked for my coworkers was. That would usually cover the trip. Some would be a little less, some a little more so it would all even out.
> 
> When a new manager wouldn’t give me the stipend I asked to be booked Southwest, that way I could cancel the southwest ticket, keep that amount, and then travel however I wanted.


Like a lot of (or even most, larger) companies now, we use a third party online travel agency vendor and have to do all of our travel and hotel bookings through them. When I go to book travel for a trip, Amtrak doesn't even show up as an option. So I am sure I would have to jump through multiple administrative exception hoops and hurdles if I ever stumbled upon a trip where taking Amtrak might actually make sense. Which I don't ever see happening in the remainder of my working life, so it is a non-issue.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Jul 12, 2021)

jruff001 said:


> Like a lot of (or even most, larger) companies now, we use a third party online travel agency vendor and have to do all of our travel and hotel bookings through them. When I go to book travel for a trip, Amtrak doesn't even show up as an option. So I am sure I would have to jump through multiple administrative exception hoops and hurdles if I ever stumbled upon a trip where taking Amtrak might actually make sense. Which I don't ever see happening in the remainder of my working life, so it is a non-issue.



If you don’t want it to make sense, it never will. If you want it to make sense it will.


----------



## zephyr17 (Jul 12, 2021)

Luckily, when I did my trips, travel was still done in house. They had a travel agency and portal you _could _use, but it wasn't mandatory. In a few cities where there were hotel contracts you had to use those hotels.


----------



## nendee (Jul 13, 2021)

Are there any other “easy” overnight journeys that make sense like the Boston/DC trip? I think we can agree the NYC/Chicago trip is probably a little less desirable - but perhaps there are other connecting journeys?


----------



## nendee (Jul 13, 2021)

Exvalley said:


> Okay, but this is how this thread started:
> 
> 
> In no way shape or form is taking the train from New York to Chicago faster than flying.





crescent-zephyr said:


> If you don’t want it to make sense, it never will. If you want it to make sense it will.


With remote working, reduced travel and general Covid hangover, asking now if you can take an overnight Amtrak for the currently now very rare business trip is the last thing a responsible business wants to think about.


----------



## jruff001 (Jul 13, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> If you don’t want it to make sense, it never will. If you want it to make sense it will.


I am based in Florida. I have to go to the Milwaukee area once in a while for a day or two of meetings. Tell me how to do that on Amtrak without it taking an entire week.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Jul 13, 2021)

nendee said:


> With remote working, reduced travel and general Covid hangover, asking now if you can take an overnight Amtrak for the currently now very rare business trip is the last thing a responsible business wants to think about.



I admit I think it would be hard anywhere but the NEC, because the train is now part of the culture in the northeast. 

I could see an argument for coach. It’s very cheap, and can save on hotel cost. If sleeper is more your style, you can pay the difference.


----------



## jruff001 (Jul 13, 2021)

Tlcooper93 said:


> I admit I think it would be hard anywhere but the NEC, because the train is now part of the culture in the northeast.
> 
> I could see an argument for coach. It’s very cheap, and can save on hotel cost. If sleeper is more your style, you can pay the difference.


No one (except maybe a couple of people here) would volunteer to sit in coach all night or pay a lot of money for a sleeper to go on a business trip, when they could get free air fare and hotel accommodations from their company.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Jul 13, 2021)

jruff001 said:


> No one (except maybe a couple of people here) would volunteer to sit in coach all night or pay a lot of money for a sleeper to go on a business trip, when they could get free air fare and hotel accommodations from their company.



Speak for yourself.


----------



## Exvalley (Jul 13, 2021)

jruff001 said:


> No one (except maybe a couple of people here) would volunteer to sit in coach all night or pay a lot of money for a sleeper to go on a business trip, when they could get free air fare and hotel accommodations from their company.


I would never travel overnight in coach for business. Not when the alternative is a nice hotel room.

I have been able to get overnight travel in a roomette approved - but it took some effort. It has worked three times on the Lake Shore Limited. It helps that I can get done with meetings in the evening and have until 9:30 PM to board the train in Chicago. I was able to make the case that the overnight train saved me a night in a hotel and the cost of the Amtrak trip was less than than the cost of a hotel night and airfare combined.

The problem is that the next day is pretty much shot. If I fly, I can be back in the office well before noon. I've tried to explain that I can work on the train, but it seems to fall on deaf ears. For this reason, I think that the days of getting overnight train travel approved are numbered.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Jul 13, 2021)

Making blanket statements about everyone just doesn’t work. Business (and essential non-leisure) also looks different for each person.

For me, I value different aspects of travel as it effects the quality of my output and oftentimes, an overnight train is indeed the best way to travel. 

I however, am not going to pretend I am the norm, and neither should anyone else pretend that their habits are the norm. People travel different ways for myriad reasons. Some people enjoy the slower pace, some are afraid of flying, some want to be more environmentally conscious (this pool is growing). My sister exclusively drives for business, oftentimes upwards of 8 hours.

Many people take overnight trains in coach for business and they happen to be minorities, who don’t have the privilege of flying for one reason or another. I’ve met people on an overnight bus for business... so just because one has the privilege of booking endless flights with a fancy job to get home to a fancy bed, it doesn’t mean they are in the majority.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Jul 13, 2021)

jruff001 said:


> I am based in Florida. I have to go to the Milwaukee area once in a while for a day or two of meetings. Tell me how to do that on Amtrak without it taking an entire week.



You’d have 4 full days of travel that’s for sure. If there was a Chicago to Florida train like there should be you’d have a great option to consider.

But I made plenty of crazy trips work for me in my business travel. I would take Jefferson Lines up to Fargo to catch the empire builder in the middle of the night.


----------



## west point (Jul 13, 2021)

CHI <> Toledo / Cleveland / Buffalo might be some uses.
NEC <> Richmond
WASH <> Albany
NYP <> Pittsburgh


----------



## Danib62 (Jul 13, 2021)

nendee said:


> Are there any other “easy” overnight journeys that make sense like the Boston/DC trip? I think we can agree the NYC/Chicago trip is probably a little less desirable - but perhaps there are other connecting journeys?


I think Washington, DC to Atlanta would be a good candidate. Right now it leaves at 6:30p and gets in the next day at 8:43a. You trim that down a tiny bit and it's a pretty viable option.


----------



## dlagrua (Jul 13, 2021)

Why aren't overnight trains able to compete with flying?
Simply because they don't want to be. Amtrak is apparently only trying to be competitive to the airlines on the corridor routes like NYP -WAS. They do a good job at this on the efficient NEC route. On LD routes it seems that Amtrak doesn't have plans to expand the service. If the sleepers fill up this would seem that more are needed but do we hear anything about it from the BOD about missing a potential money making opportunitis on LD or overnight routes? Years back (1960's) there were trains like the PRR Broadway Ltd where the consist was entirely sleepers. I believe that would go over again today.


----------



## nendee (Jul 13, 2021)

“People travel different ways for a myriad of reasons. Some people enjoy the slower pace, some are afraid of flying, some want to be more environmentally conscious (this pool is growing).”
- Jordan Schlansky


----------



## sttom (Jul 13, 2021)

nendee said:


> Are there any other “easy” overnight journeys that make sense like the Boston/DC trip? I think we can agree the NYC/Chicago trip is probably a little less desirable - but perhaps there are other connecting journeys?



This isn't an exhaustive list:

New York - North Carolina
DC - Atlanta
DC - Cincinnati
Chicago - St Paul
Chicago - Nashville 
Chicago - Fort Worth
Chicago - Denver
Denver - Fort Worth
Denver - Salt Lake City
Denver - Albuquerque
Denver - St Louis
Kansas City - St Paul
Los Angeles - Tucson
Los Angeles - San Francisco/Sacramento


----------



## MARC Rider (Jul 13, 2021)

Tlcooper93 said:


> My sister exclusively drives for business, oftentimes upwards of 8 hours.


It's a funny thing, but our Agency had no problem with people driving between Ann Arbor, MI, and Washington, DC. And that's a 10 1/2 hour drive. I started doing it more often, because getting a rental car in Toledo at 5 AM was sort of a pain, and the alternative was turning it it at 10 PM at the airport or sitting and waiting many hours at the Toledo train station. They even let me use my personal vehicle, paying me 50 cents a mile, which means I got reimbursed about $500 just for the car, but then the government airfare was $400 round trip, plus a rental car, so I guess it was a wash financially. Later, I realized I could rent a car in Baltimore or DC for ~$200 plus gas, and I started doing that. Even later, a bunch of us started having to make trips to contractors around Akron, Ohio, and all of us just rented cars and drove out (6-7 hour drive) rather than bother with a plane to Cleveland and a rental car and 1+ hour drive down to Akron/Kent/Ravenna, etc. The only problem we ever got from the travel office was their inquiries about why we were buying a full tank of gas on the first day of the trip. (Usually, one needed to fill up the tank at the first rest stop on the Ohio Turnpike.)


----------



## lordsigma (Jul 13, 2021)

For me trains are very competitive with flying. I am afraid of flying - an irrational fear yes but the anxiety and stress I get trying to get myself on a flight for the 2 weeks before it is just not worth it - meanwhile riding trains I find as one of the most relaxing and enjoyable experiences. So for me it isn’t a hard choice. Granted I’m not everyone.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Jul 13, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> It's a funny thing, but our Agency had no problem with people driving between Ann Arbor, MI, and Washington, DC. And that's a 10 1/2 hour drive. I started doing it more often, because getting a rental car in Toledo at 5 AM was sort of a pain, and the alternative was turning it it at 10 PM at the airport or sitting and waiting many hours at the Toledo train station. They even let me use my personal vehicle, paying me 50 cents a mile, which means I got reimbursed about $500 just for the car, but then the government airfare was $400 round trip, plus a rental car, so I guess it was a wash financially. Later, I realized I could rent a car in Baltimore or DC for ~$200 plus gas, and I started doing that. Even later, a bunch of us started having to make trips to contractors around Akron, Ohio, and all of us just rented cars and drove out (6-7 hour drive) rather than bother with a plane to Cleveland and a rental car and 1+ hour drive down to Akron/Kent/Ravenna, etc. The only problem we ever got from the travel office was their inquiries about why we were buying a full tank of gas on the first day of the trip. (Usually, one needed to fill up the tank at the first rest stop on the Ohio Turnpike.)



Yet another example of trains not fathomable in the public consciousness.



nendee said:


> “People travel different ways for a myriad of reasons. Some people enjoy the slower pace, some are afraid of flying, some want to be more environmentally conscious (this pool is growing).”
> - Jordan Schlansky



?


----------



## nendee (Jul 13, 2021)

Tlcooper93 said:


> Yet another example of trains not fathomable in the public consciousness.
> 
> 
> 
> ?


Conan has a sketch where Jordan speaks exactly like your paragraph. Search it, you’ll enjoy one of their videos. Funny stuff.

Amtrak discussion at 1:42


----------



## Ferroequinologist (Jul 14, 2021)

I remember back around 1969-1970 sitting in the club car of the Broadway Limited. A big winter snow storm had started and planes were grounded. There were three very well dressed businessmen in the club car who were talking to a trainman. One asked to speak to the "Pullman conductor" as he wanted a larger room. "Sir, we no longer have Pullman conductors" the employee explained. Today's Amtrak employees probably wouldn't know what a Pullman conductor was but fifty years ago was not that far from the era when businessmen routinely travelled overnight by train as my grandfather did. These businessmen were probably in their early sixties and had had the experience of traveling by train twenty or more years earlier. That era has long since vanished and the consciousness of LD trains as a form of transport for business travelers hardly exists. The only exception I can think of is ACELA. I was surprised to hear a line in the TV series House of Cards when a staffer tells someone to "Get on the next ACELA" to New York. I wonder how many people outside the NE Corridor knew what he was talking about - but at least it was a line that reflected that the train, in some form, remains a part of the consciousness of people in a sector of the nation.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Jul 14, 2021)

Ferroequinologist said:


> I remember back around 1969-1970 sitting in the club car of the Broadway Limited. A big winter snow storm had started and planes were grounded. There were three very well dressed businessmen in the club car who were talking to a trainman. One asked to speak to the "Pullman conductor" as he wanted a larger room. "Sir, we no longer have Pullman conductors" the employee explained. Today's Amtrak employees probably wouldn't know what a Pullman conductor was but fifty years ago was not that far from the era when businessmen routinely travelled overnight by train as my grandfather did. These businessmen were probably in their early sixties and had had the experience of traveling by train twenty or more years earlier. That era has long since vanished and the consciousness of LD trains as a form of transport for business travelers hardly exists. The only exception I can think of is ACELA. I was surprised to hear a line in the TV series House of Cards when a staffer tells someone to "Get on the next ACELA" to New York. I wonder how many people outside the NE Corridor knew what he was talking about - but at least it was a line that reflected that the train, in some form, remains a part of the consciousness of people in a sector of the nation.



The NEC is a wonderful and peculiar place that really feels more like Europe than the US:
-You can take a high speed train (not officially HSR but more or less mirrors what HSR looks like in some European countries).
-There's high frequency service
-There is a popular night train with sleeper service.
-You have plenty of extra rail and transit infrastructure to compliment the NEC so that cars are not needed for intercity travel so long as you remain in the metro area (perhaps cars are even a burden)
-Big beautiful train stations that are destinations in and of themselves.

All of this enables business travellers to utilize the NEC and Acela service; it exists as a pretty large share of the market. Some Boston financial firms send their people to NYC by train more than by plane (pre-pandemic).


I think the word is getting out!
We haven't seen this level of public acknowledgement, or interest in trains in decades. The fact that there is serious legislation considering the utter reorganization of hierarchy of spending in transit is amazing.


----------



## jimdex (Jul 14, 2021)

Atlanta - DC was a reasonable overnight trip, and was indeed used for a few business trips until the schedule was changed earlier this summer.


----------



## MARC Rider (Jul 14, 2021)

Ferroequinologist said:


> The only exception I can think of is ACELA.


Or Northeast Regional. Plenty of business travelers on the Northeast Regionals.


----------



## zephyr17 (Jul 14, 2021)

Ferroequinologist said:


> The only exception I can think of is ACELA.


The Cascades between Seattle and Portland are heavily used for business travel, as are the Surfliners, particularly between LA and San Diego. The Capitol Corridor between Sacramento and the Bay Area is big in business travel.

I can't speak to Michigan Services, or Lincoln Service, but imagine they have their share.

Plus the aforementioned Regionals.

What they all have in common is they are all Corridor services with moderate trip times and multiple frequencies. What they also have in common is they are not overnight trips. Anywhere multi-frequency corridor service is offered between business centers 2-4/5 hours apart business travel takes to the rails.

Overnight business travel by rail basically died on the late 1950s and early 1960s, when the offerings were much more plentiful and flexible, the trains generally faster and the onboard service better. It is not coming back. While some of here managed it, some often, some occasionally, we are not a representative sample. Business travelers generally do not like to be on the road any longer than they have to be.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Jul 14, 2021)

zephyr17 said:


> It is not coming back.



I think it could. In some markets. With the right service. 

Also... eventually we as humans will have to admit that the environment matters. When that happens there will be more of a reason for passenger rail.


----------



## zephyr17 (Jul 14, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> I think it could. In some markets. With the right service.
> 
> Also... eventually we as humans will have to admit that the environment matters. When that happens there will be more of a reason for passenger rail.


Amtrak would have to start structuring some service specifically oriented to time sensitive overnight business travel. Nothing in Amtrak's plans show the slightest indications of moving that way, with the possible exception of adding a sleeper to 65/66/67. Even that isn't serious, a real attempt at capturing business traffic would have included New York set out cars with early (9 pm) and late (8 am) occupancy.

Everything in Amtrak's proposals are oriented towards daytime Corridor services. There is a proven track record that those can attract business travelers. Overnight service for business travelers is a long shot and one in the dark.

The railroads couldn't keep it when they already had the business and better and much more complete services.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Jul 14, 2021)

zephyr17 said:


> Amtrak would have to start structuring some service specifically oriented to time sensitive overnight business travel. Nothing in Amtrak's plans show the slightest indications of moving that way, with the possible exception of adding a sleeper to 65/66/67. Even that isn't serious, a real attempt at capturing business traffic would have included New York set out cars with early (9 pm) and late (8 am) occupancy.
> 
> Everything in Amtrak's proposals are oriented towards daytime Corridor services. There is a proven track record that those can attract business travelers. Overnight service for business travelers is a long shot and one in the dark.
> 
> The railroads couldn't keep it when they already had the business and better and much more complete services.



Wouldn’t necessarily be Amtrak.


----------



## zephyr17 (Jul 14, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> Wouldn’t necessarily be Amtrak.


Who else had legally mandated track access at artificially low rates?


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Jul 14, 2021)

zephyr17 said:


> Who else had legally mandated track access at artificially low rates?



There’s talk of attempts at this from Boston/NYC - Montreal, but it’s a pipe dream at best (at least for the coming decade).


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Jul 14, 2021)

zephyr17 said:


> Who else had legally mandated track access at artificially low rates?



Not sure why that matters? It’s not an impossibility.


----------



## zephyr17 (Jul 14, 2021)

Tlcooper93 said:


> There’s talk of attempts at this from Boston/NYC - Montreal, but it’s a pipe dream at best (at least for the coming decade).


Hadn't heard about this, at least as non-Amtrak. Heard rumblings about maybe resuming the Montrealer as a overnight service if they ever put that Preclearance facility in Central Station. 

Personally, I think a better candidate for business travel would be NYC-Toronto. Toronto is Canada's business capital and has been eclipsing Montreal as a business center for decades.


----------



## zephyr17 (Jul 14, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> Not sure why that matters? It’s not an impossibility.


Um, it matters because most railroads are pretty allergic to passenger trains and a market rate to attract the railroads to run a disruptive, rigidly scheduled train would be many times that of the Amtrak avoidable cost based rate, making the already dubious economics even more difficult. Especially in these days of PSR.

Nothing is an "impossibility". Making an near impossibility happen is highly improbable, though. I am trying to think in political and economic realities that currently exist and are likely to exist in the near future. No, it's not impossible, merely wildly unlikely.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Jul 14, 2021)

Difficult? Sure. Impossible? Not at all. 

Even more possible with rail friendly people in power (President Biden and our good friend Pete!)


----------



## zephyr17 (Jul 14, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> Difficult? Sure. Impossible? Not at all.
> 
> Even more possible with rail friendly people in power (President Biden and our good friend Pete!)


Never said it was impossible. Said it was wildly unlikely, and I stand by that.

Biden and Buttigieg are both nothing if not highly practical politicians. They both support rail. And both are highly supportive of Amtrak's corridor initiatives. I do not see either wasting political capital in a unproven long shot to restore overnight business rail travel.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Jul 14, 2021)

No. You said the days were gone and weren’t coming back. I said they could possibly come back.


----------



## zephyr17 (Jul 14, 2021)

Okay, I will amend that to it is wildly unlikely they'll come back.

Semantics aside, do you have any practical suggestions?


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jul 14, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> Even more possible with rail friendly people in power (President Biden and our good friend Pete!)


I suppose anything is possible but you'd need a stronger Senate that could ignore Mushy Manchin and Spineless Sinema.



zephyr17 said:


> Toronto is Canada's business capital and has been eclipsing Montreal as a business center for decades.


Oui.


----------



## nendee (Jul 14, 2021)

Newbie question - does Europe share passenger rail with freight? Are they two separate track entities?


----------



## sttom (Jul 14, 2021)

zephyr17 said:


> Overnight business travel by rail basically died on the late 1950s and early 1960s, when the offerings were much more plentiful and flexible, the trains generally faster and the onboard service better. It is not coming back. While some of here managed it, some often, some occasionally, we are not a representative sample. Business travelers generally do not like to be on the road any longer than they have to be.


"Died" really isn't the right term to describe what happened to the easy overnight trips in the US rail network prior to Amtrak. A lot of companies (notably the Southern Pacific and the Chicago & Northwestern) ran their trains into the ground in a bid to get rid of them because they didn't want to try to compete with cars on segments where they could. Some of these routes like the SP's Owl between Oakland and Los Angeles was running with worn-out heavyweight equipment until it was cancelled. Some railways ran a good service till the end, but a lot of them were trying to kill off their passenger trains and some tried to compete and were reasonably successful. Mostly the railroads that started using Slumbercoaches. They tended to do better than others. So Amtrak could compete, but they don't have a plan to do so as was mentioned.



crescent-zephyr said:


> Difficult? Sure. Impossible? Not at all.
> 
> Even more possible with rail friendly people in power (President Biden and our good friend Pete!)


I'll believe those two when they deliver. Until then they're all talk and no walk. Northeast Joe is a friend of the NEC, not the rest of us.


----------



## zephyr17 (Jul 14, 2021)

Note that I started the time period in the late 1950s, when services were still abundant and service levels had not yet declined.

In the late 1950s the Lark was still full service, and though they had added coaches by then, it was still running the Lark Club with full dining service for dinner and breakfast. The Owl still had grill service.

Patronage in these trains was declining rapidly when even services were still largely intact even on the shortly to become passenger averse SP. Shortly after, it became a vicious cycle where downgrades drove off more passengers, driving even more downgrades, driving off more passengers. There is no denying that SP became actively hostile to passengers and tried to drive them off, following a playbook remarkably similar to Richard Anderson's, but not in the late 50s.

The 20th Century Limited maintained its standards to its last day in 1967.

Business patronage was already declining rapidly before the big service cuts. The downgrades were the coup de grace.


----------



## zephyr17 (Jul 14, 2021)

nendee said:


> Newbie question - does Europe share passenger rail with freight? Are they two separate track entities?


They share, but the rail infrastructure structure is passenger oriented with freight very much secondary, the inverse of here. The economics of rail freight favor long haul over short haul, which is one of the reasons why private railroads survived here, with their very long hauls.

Largely only the HSR lines are exclusively passenger. Most conventional lines host at least a little freight.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Jul 14, 2021)

nendee said:


> Newbie question - does Europe share passenger rail with freight? Are they two separate track entities?



I beleive the railroad’s are owned and maintained as infrastructure and trains bid to use space on the track. Similar to how our airports work.


----------



## jruff001 (Jul 14, 2021)

sttom said:


> "Died" really isn't the right term to describe what happened to the easy overnight trips in the US rail network prior to Amtrak. A lot of companies (notably the Southern Pacific and the Chicago & Northwestern) ran their trains into the ground in a bid to get rid of them because they didn't want to try to compete with cars on segments where they could. Some of these routes like the SP's Owl between Oakland and Los Angeles was running with worn-out heavyweight equipment until it was cancelled. Some railways ran a good service till the end, but a lot of them were trying to kill off their passenger trains and some tried to compete and were reasonably successful. Mostly the railroads that started using Slumbercoaches. They tended to do better than others. So Amtrak could compete, but they don't have a plan to do so as was mentioned.


Well, they only started trying to kill off passenger trains once it became clear to them that passenger trains were a money-losing proposition, but they still had to convince the ICC of that.

Or are you saying the railroads tried to kill off passenger trains even though they could have been financial gold mines?


----------



## jis (Jul 14, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> I beleive the railroad’s are owned and maintained as infrastructure and trains bid to use space on the track. Similar to how our airports work.


That is what EU wants. That is mostly not the reality, though there are many places where it is slowly tending towards the norm.

It is actually quite interesting that in so called “socialist” Europe open access to infrastructure is the stated goal, whereas in the land of so called “free enterprise” access to infrastructure is about as closed as it can be.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Jul 14, 2021)

jis said:


> That is what EU wants. That is mostly not the reality, though there are many places where it is slowly tending towards the norm.



What’s the normal setup? And what is the normal in the UK?


----------



## toddinde (Jul 14, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> OK, maybe between New York and Washington, and also between LA and San Francisco if they ever finish CAHSR, and the Midwest corridors if they improve the speeds and reliability. According the Amtrak, the Cascades actually compete with air travel between Portland and Seattle, which is a bit of a mystery to me, although these two cities are so close together, why would anyone want to fly the distance. And maybe a few more city pairs, and also the trains may be competitive in some smaller markets where there isn't good air service and multiple connections are needed. But the point is that in most of these cases, these would be day trains.
> 
> As far as overnight services, there may be room to build some market for business travelers, but it's always going to be a niche market. I say this as someone who, indeed, has traveled overnight on Amtrak for business. The vast majority of travelers, if presented with a choice of 4-5 hours of dealing with getting to the airport, airport formalities, a flight of 1-2 hours, and the airport stuff on the other end, will chose that over 9-10 hours in a sleeping car, no matter how nice it is and how good the service they get. And most people for these sort of short trips don't need any sort of food service, they'll either eat before the go to the airport or when they get into town.
> 
> Let's face it, the days of the fast streamliners for overnight business trips are over and have been for half a century. While it might be possible to provide such service, it's always going to be a much lower priority for Amtrak and its paymasters (i.e. the states and Congress). I'm satisfied that we can still enjoy at least a simulacrum of old-style long-distance train travel on a few selected routes. But the future of passenger rail is really for shorter distances, going faster and more frequently between large population centers.


I don’t agree, and night trains are thriving in Europe. This is a new day, and people are changing their approach to travel. The pre-Amtrak era of night train business travel is a few generations ago. It’s time to give it a shot and market it. The Caledonian Sleeper model applied to the Northeast would pack a big punch. Trains originating in Norfolk or Richmond, and terminating in Boston and a number of destinations like Albany and Maine. Those are cities that could be conveniently served. Note also that most of those cities require a connection making any flight at minimum, five or six hours. Unless you live in a hub city, any flight usually requires a change. Any change adds hours to the flight. I’ve flown a lot for business, and a flight is more often than not an all day affair. We don’t know what we don’t have, but there are a lot of business travelers that would gladly get off the plane for a train.


----------



## Exvalley (Jul 14, 2021)

Devil's Advocate said:


> I suppose anything is possible but you'd need a stronger Senate that could ignore Mushy Manchin and Spineless Sinema.


If the Democrats ignore Manchin and Sinema on matters with no Republican support absolutely nothing will pass. Like it or not, their votes are needed.


----------



## Mailliw (Jul 14, 2021)

zephyr17 said:


> Hadn't heard about this, at least as non-Amtrak. Heard rumblings about maybe resuming the Montrealer as a overnight service if they ever put that Preclearance facility in Central Station.
> 
> Personally, I think a better candidate for business travel would be NYC-Toronto. Toronto is Canada's business capital and has been eclipsing Montreal as a business center for decades.



François Rebello is a former Quebec MNA; Hotel Train proposal have been geared towards personal travel, not business. Presumably this would benefit Quebec much more than NYS so it's a nonstandard unless the former is willing and able to provide a subsidy. It be a very interesting public private partnership between his company, Amtrak, and VIA for sure.


----------



## neroden (Jul 14, 2021)

Exvalley said:


> What a horrible strategy. If the Democrats ignore Manchin and Sinema on matters with no Republican support absolutely nothing will pass. Like it or not, their votes are needed. There is nothing “squishy” or “spineless” about being accountable to your constituents. That’s how a democracy supposed to work.


Sinema is certainly not being accountable to her constituents; polls show that her bizarre pro-filibuster stunts means that she'd lose the primary at this point, and it's infuriating independents too, without gaining her any Republican support.


----------



## neroden (Jul 14, 2021)

Exvalley said:


> Let's be fair here. The airlines provided a service. Consumers are the ones who made the choice - and they chose what they preferred. You can't fault the airlines for giving the consumer what they wanted.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed! I rode a Northeast Regional for the first time in years this past weekend. One of the things that surprised me the most was how long it took to travel between Pelham and Penn Station. I know that there is no easy answer, but that long loop through Astoria at a not-so-fast speed seemed to be incredibly inefficient.


*Sigh* Alternative G, the tunnel between Penn Station and Grand Central. Then the train could come into GCT, then continue to Penn. The slow section would be much shorter, since the GCT approach is pretty fast, and for people headed to the east side of Manhattan, the whole trip would be shorter.

This was stopped by, I kid you not, worries about dealing with the owners of the extremely expensive land full of skyscrapers along the route. No other reason. That's the official reason given for not doing it. Pathetic; the government is supposed to have eminent domain, not be the servant of private landlords.


----------



## Ferroequinologist (Jul 14, 2021)

zephyr17 said:


> The Cascades between Seattle and Portland are heavily used for business travel, as are the Surfliners, particularly between LA and San Diego. The Capitol Corridor between Sacramento and the Bay Area is big in business travel.
> 
> I can't speak to Michigan Services, or Lincoln Service, but imagine they have their share.
> 
> ...



Are these routes REALLY a common mode of travel for business people the way New York-Philadelphia, Phildelphia-Washington or even New York to Washington is?


----------



## Ferroequinologist (Jul 14, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> Or Northeast Regional. Plenty of business travelers on the Northeast Regionals.


Yes, I agree. I cited ACELA because it is the only service that has the speed and amenities to attract airline business class travellers. NE Regional is a step below and it does indeed attract a lot of others. If you say you're taking the train NY to Washington, New York to Philadelphia or Philadelphia to Washington no-one is going to be surprised. It's just a normal thing to do. Can that be said of any other corridor in the US (other than New York-Boston)?


----------



## sttom (Jul 14, 2021)

jruff001 said:


> Well, they only started trying to kill off passenger trains once it became clear to them that passenger trains were a money-losing proposition, but they still had to convince the ICC of that.
> 
> Or are you saying the railroads tried to kill off passenger trains even though they could have been financial gold mines?


Financial gold mines, no. Less money losing and small profit, potentially. Railroads didn't even want to try to compete in the 50s and were happy to cede as much of the market as they could get away with by and large until Amtrak was created. Some railroads figured in the 30s that cars would be a threat over time and still put up a good show after World War 2. The Great Northern was one of them. 

This also doesn't take away from the fact that most railroads didn't put money into services that could turn a profit. Which were shorter segments where traffic was already becoming a problem and were too short to fly. They essential only kept the routes they had to. The railroad industry at this point and arguably American companies to this day are not run by the most competent people, but the laziest and greediest people possible.


----------



## neroden (Jul 14, 2021)

Ferroequinologist said:


> Yes, I agree. I cited ACELA because it is the only service that has the speed and amenities to attract airline business class travellers. NE Regional is a step below and it does indeed attract a lot of others. If you say you're taking the train NY to Washington, New York to Philadelphia or Philadelphia to Washington no-one is going to be surprised. It's just a normal thing to do. Can that be said of any other corridor in the US (other than New York-Boston)?


LA-San Diego.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Jul 14, 2021)

Ferroequinologist said:


> Can that be said of any other corridor in the US (other than New York-Boston)?



Chicago area (Chicago to Milwaukee, Detroit, St. Louis, etc)


----------



## zephyr17 (Jul 14, 2021)

Ferroequinologist said:


> Are these routes REALLY a common mode of travel for business people the way New York-Philadelphia, Phildelphia-Washington or even New York to Washington is?


I can directly speak to the Cascades and the answer is yes. People at my company used it for business travel routinely to Portland and Vancouver, WA. Amtrak Cascades was one of our company's recommended carriers. Flying to Portland is a pain with the whole airport rigmarole for such a short flight and Interstate 5 is often a problem around Lakewood and Joint Base Lewis McChord even outside of Seattle, Tacoma and Vancouver/Portland rush hours. A lot more people I knew at work used the Cascades than the Alaska/Horizon puddle jumps to get to Portland.

So yeah. It was highly popular and well patronized with both business and leisure travelers before COVID.


----------



## zephyr17 (Jul 14, 2021)

neroden said:


> LA-San Diego.


----------



## zephyr17 (Jul 14, 2021)

I don't think there are even that many flights between the 6 LA area airports and San Diego.


----------



## neroden (Jul 14, 2021)

Actually, in addition to LA-San Diego, Cascades, and the Milwaukee and Detroit routes from Chicago, I know that Harrisburg-Philadelphia, Albany-NYC, and Springfield MA-New Haven-NYC are pretty well-known and people aren't surprised if you take them.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Jul 14, 2021)

Oh yeah - definitely the Harrisburg line.


----------



## MARC Rider (Jul 14, 2021)

sttom said:


> Financial gold mines, no. Less money losing and small profit, potentially. Railroads didn't even want to try to compete in the 50s and were happy to cede as much of the market as they could get away with by and large until Amtrak was created. Some railroads figured in the 30s that cars would be a threat over time and still put up a good show after World War 2. The Great Northern was one of them.
> 
> This also doesn't take away from the fact that most railroads didn't put money into services that could turn a profit. Which were shorter segments where traffic was already becoming a problem and were too short to fly. They essential only kept the routes they had to. The railroad industry at this point and arguably American companies to this day are not run by the most competent people, but the laziest and greediest people possible.


I think that back in the 1950s and 1960s many railroad executives didn't even think that freight rail had much of a future, and their business strategy, such as it was, was to liquidate the "loser" railroad operations and then make money by liquidating their real-estate holdings and investing in other stuff. This is why Penn Station in New York is an underground warren and Madison Square Garden and an office building are sitting on top of it. They almost tried to do the same to Grand Central Terminal, but the preservationists were able to stop them. The successors to the Penn Central are now, more or less, a diversified financial services company, and a real estate company. Of course, in today's America much more money can be made in various forms of dealmaking than can be made by providing useful goods and services.


----------



## zephyr17 (Jul 14, 2021)

Well, Warren Buffett saw enough in BNSF to buy it completely and take it private. So there's that.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jul 14, 2021)

Exvalley said:


> What a horrible strategy. If the Democrats ignore Manchin and Sinema on matters with no Republican support absolutely nothing will pass. Like it or not, their votes are needed. There is nothing “squishy” or “spineless” about being accountable to your constituents. That’s how a democracy supposed to work.


Outside of budgets and confirmations the Senate is essentially deadlocked for the foreseeable future. If that's how democracy is supposed to work then I don't know what to say. I'm not that surprised by Manchin but Sinema blasted other senators for failing to work around the filibuster only to bend with the wind and follow in their footsteps. Rather than keep her constituents happy she's painting herself into a corner where primary supporters no longer approve of her performance (28/61) and general election support is being undermined by a growing number of voter restrictions. As her path for reelection evaporates Sinema continues to rail against state regulators and supreme courts while pretending she has no role to play other than waiting for McConnell to give her permission to vote her conscience.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jul 14, 2021)

Devil's Advocate said:


> Outside of budgets and confirmations the Senate is essentially deadlocked for the foreseeable future. If that's how democracy is supposed to work then I don't know what to say. I'm not that surprised by Manchin but Sinema blasted other senators for failing to work around the filibuster only to bend with the wind and follow in their footsteps. Rather than keep her constituents happy she's painting herself into a corner where primary supporters no longer approve of her performance (28/61) and general election support is being undermined by a growing number of voter restrictions. As her path for reelection evaporates Sinema continues to rail against state regulators and supreme courts while pretending she has no role to play other than waiting for McConnell to give her permission to vote her conscience.


Manchin and Sinema-
DINO= Democrats In Name Only


----------



## jebr (Jul 14, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> Also... eventually we as humans will have to admit that the environment matters. When that happens there will be more of a reason for passenger rail.



Well, electrified passenger rail, anyways. I'm honestly not super-convinced that taking a roomette outside of the NEC today, where we're still using diesel engines, is all that much better than taking a commercial flight somewhere. Until we build electric rail infrastructure on more Amtrak routes (where the trains can take advantage of improvements to the electric grid's carbon footprint) I don't think the argument that a roomette is super green compared to a coach (or domestic first) flight holds up.

There's also the simple logistics of overnight trains not always working out well for business travelers, especially large market to large market. Do I really want to have to prep for the business meeting in a roomette, when I could have a hotel room instead? Do I want to have to store my luggage somewhere until I can check in to my room, versus coming the night before and being settled into my hotel room already? It might make sense for a day business trip if trains are run reliably on-time, but once you have to start looking at hotels anyways, it seems a lot harder to argue against the ability to settle in the night before, or to have one extra night at home before catching that early-morning flight.

There's certainly a market for sleeper trains, but I think it has to work to catch leisure travelers, either on cost savings (which Amtrak doesn't really do these days, at least once you start looking at a roomette) or on experience. There'll be some business travelers who'll tag along, but I think the market is just easier to grab on the leisure side (where you can sell an experience or try to compete on a barebones price) versus the business side where an extra $50-$100 for a "real bed that isn't moving" would be considered a worthwhile expense.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Jul 14, 2021)

jebr said:


> Well, electrified passenger rail, anyways. I'm honestly not super-convinced that taking a roomette outside of the NEC today, where we're still using diesel engines, is all that much better than taking a commercial flight somewhere.



Rail travel is wayyyyy more efficient than air travel. If you’re not convinced than you’re not educated at all on the subject.


----------



## Qapla (Jul 15, 2021)

jruff001 said:


> they only started trying to kill off passenger trains once it became clear to them that passenger trains were a money-losing proposition



There is a difference in something being a "money-losing proposition" and something that doesn't make the desired profit. I do not know if the railroads of yesteryear were actually losing money on their passenger routes or if they claimed that because they didn't make the profit percentage they desired. I'll illustrate what I mean:

I used to work for a man who used to be the manager for a local "free paper" that was owned by a large newspaper company. They wanted to sell the local paper because it wasn't "making money" and they needed to divest it. No one was buying so they were considering just shutting it down. He was wondering what he was going to do when this job ended. He had a meeting with a company representative about the future of the local paper and the guy told him, "Why don't you buy it?"

His response was along the lines of why would he want a company that was losing money and going out of business. The rep told him that the paper was making money ... and he showed him the proof. He discovered that the local paper was making a profit of just under a million dollars a year. The parent company viewed any subsidiary that made less than a million profit a year as "losing money" and would divest it.

He bought the paper. He still owns it and still prints publications even with the Internet. He has made vast amounts of money, from his point of view, even though he made less than $1,000,000 profit a year.

So, were the freight railroads actually "losing" money or just not making "enough profit" for the bean counters?


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Jul 15, 2021)

Qapla said:


> So, were the freight railroads actually "losing" money or just not making "enough profit" for the bean counters?



Bingo. The freight trains were making plenty of money before progressive railroading.... but those in power wanted more. Progressive Railroading shouldn’t be legal but here we are.


----------



## nendee (Jul 15, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> Rail travel is wayyyyy more efficient than air travel. If you’re not convinced than you’re not educated at all on the subject.



United Airlines to buy 100 Electric planes for regional routes


----------



## railiner (Jul 15, 2021)

Although still a long way off, the day is getting closer to when battery technology will meet and perhaps even exceed carbon-fuel storage capability. Not to mention the ability to recharge in motion during sunlight....


----------



## Ferroequinologist (Jul 15, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> Chicago area (Chicago to Milwaukee, Detroit, St. Louis, etc)


I believe Chicago to Milwaukee but to Saint Louis? I have my doubts that many business people take the train as far as Saint Louis.


----------



## Ferroequinologist (Jul 15, 2021)

neroden said:


> LA-San Diego.



This is possible but limited compared to the NE Corridor. The last time I rode it I saw two men in my coach who appeared to be on business. Everyone else looked like casual travelers. It was a weekday and the train was not very full. Pre Covid NE Corridor trains were packed with business people.


----------



## Ferroequinologist (Jul 15, 2021)

neroden said:


> Actually, in addition to LA-San Diego, Cascades, and the Milwaukee and Detroit routes from Chicago, I know that Harrisburg-Philadelphia, Albany-NYC, and Springfield MA-New Haven-NYC are pretty well-known and people aren't surprised if you take them.



Philadelphia-Harrisburg is really an extension of the NE Corridor. You're right they are used by business people, including some state legislators. Albany-New York probably gets some business people too. Not sure about Springfield-New Haven.


----------



## Exvalley (Jul 15, 2021)

jebr said:


> Do I really want to have to prep for the business meeting in a roomette, when I could have a hotel room instead? Do I want to have to store my luggage somewhere until I can check in to my room, versus coming the night before and being settled into my hotel room already? It might make sense for a day business trip if trains are run reliably on-time, but once you have to start looking at hotels anyways, it seems a lot harder to argue against the ability to settle in the night before, or to have one extra night at home before catching that early-morning flight.


The one challenge for me is that there is no access to an ironing board and iron on the train. What I usually do (and it is a pain), is have my next days' suit and shirt on hangars with a plastic cleaner bag over them - but not in my garment bag. They are usually straight from the dry cleaner, so if I hang them up in the roomette they are in perfect shape for the next day. But it is a pain to lug that through the train station, especially when you have another bag. I have yet to figure out a way to put clothes into a garment bag without some sort of wrinkling - even if I do not have to fold the garment bag over.



crescent-zephyr said:


> Rail travel is wayyyyy more efficient than air travel. If you’re not convinced than you’re not educated at all on the subject.



You really can't make a blanket statement like that. I recall seeing some very good analysis from a pilot on this forum. The short version is that "it depends." If you are traveling from Chicago to the west coast, Amtrak burns more fuel per passenger than modern aircraft do. This is mostly because Amtrak uses old, dirty locomotives. The environmental advantage of rail travel increases as the trip shortens. 

So if you really want to be "educated" on the subject, you need to admit that the train is not always the most environmentally friendly option. It usually is... but not always.


----------



## Qapla (Jul 15, 2021)

Like I have mentioned a few times on this forum - I don't fly ... so, I don't know all the ins-and-outs of flying. That said, reading many of the comments about the difference in flying and passenger trains on this forum and in this thread ... I would get the idea only leisure travel is done on the train with very little business people and that planes are totally full of business travelers and hardly any people fly for other reasons or purposes.

The point is - there is room for both modes of travel in this country if people would quit making it into a "fly or train" battle with only one "winner" and the other ceasing operation. Why not support and improve both!?!


----------



## jebr (Jul 15, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> Rail travel is wayyyyy more efficient than air travel. If you’re not convinced than you’re not educated at all on the subject.



According to Amtrak's "Travel Green" website, they state that Amtrak is 34% more energy efficient than flying, and "up to 73% fewer emissions." The emissions claim is unsourced and has an up-to, while the 34% more energy efficient comes from the 2021 U.S. Department of Energy Data Book. That publication has a warning on both graphs that talk about it (the main one, not including power distribution losses, and the secondary one that includes power distribution losses):

"Great care should be taken when comparing modal energy intensity data among modes. Because of the inherent differences among the transportation modes in the nature of services, routes available, and many additional factors, it is not possible to obtain truly comparable national energy intensities among modes. These values are averages, and there is a great deal of variability even within a mode."

Given that rail isn't leaps and bounds more efficient than air on the sourced claim, I think it's reasonable to infer that there are instances where particular Amtrak trips in particular classes of service may be less efficient than particular air trips in particular classes of service - where the mode used on Amtrak is particularly energy-intensive (say, a sleeper compartment which uses diesel engines and is not terribly dense, and with current dining services also has to account for the diesel used by the dining car) and the mode used in the air is somewhat less energy-intensive than the average (maybe not domestic first, but domestic coach on a mainline jet on a longer flight is likely more energy-efficient than the average air mile, since the average also includes small turboprop planes, higher passenger-mile emissions for short hops, etc.)

It's important to note that I'm not saying that rail travel _in general_ is less efficient than air travel _in general_ (clearly rail travel is better on average,) and rail certainly has a clearer path to getting to low/zero emissions (electrifying the rail network moves emissions to the electric grid, which looks to be moving to zero-carbon by mid-century in many places.) With how the landscape looks today, though, I'm not sure the argument is as strong for the efficiency of traveling in a sleeper car pulled by a diesel locomotive over air travel, particularly mainline jet travel. I'm not convinced that jet travel is significantly better, either, just that they're probably in the same ballpark.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Jul 15, 2021)

Qapla said:


> I would get the idea only leisure travel is done on the train with very little business people and that planes are totally full of business travelers and hardly any people fly for other reasons or purposes.



I’ve never seen airplanes full of business travelers. Certainly you’ll see business travelers on an airplane but there are many routes (Orlando, Vegas) where you’re likely to see all tourists.


----------



## jiml (Jul 15, 2021)

railiner said:


> Although still a long way off, the day is getting closer to when battery technology will meet and perhaps even exceed carbon-fuel storage capability. Not to mention the ability to recharge in motion during sunlight....


The problem with battery technology is only now the environmental impact of manufacturing them and disposing of old ones starting to get attention. Advocating them as the ideal replacement for fossil fuels may amount to short-term virtue signalling more than actual practicality.


----------



## sttom (Jul 15, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> I think that back in the 1950s and 1960s many railroad executives didn't even think that freight rail had much of a future, and their business strategy, such as it was, was to liquidate the "loser" railroad operations and then make money by liquidating their real-estate holdings and investing in other stuff. This is why Penn Station in New York is an underground warren and Madison Square Garden and an office building are sitting on top of it. They almost tried to do the same to Grand Central Terminal, but the preservationists were able to stop them. The successors to the Penn Central are now, more or less, a diversified financial services company, and a real estate company. Of course, in today's America much more money can be made in various forms of dealmaking than can be made by providing useful goods and services.


Depends on the railroad and depends on when. Some railroads like the Chicago Great Western figured they'd be on the short end of the stick in 1945 and others didn't face problems until much later. The UP and BN were such examples of facing problems later. From what I can tell, people say there was some ethos of imminent death in the 50s that everyone knew about, whether or not there was is not something that seems to have made it into the historical record. Some railroads like the CNW were notoriously cheap throughout their existence and American business managers tend to lean that way anyways regardless of on going conditions. We can see it now with businesses refusing to hire people when others quit which snow balls into entire Burger Kings not having staff or the on going issues with the Post Office. The railroads did this too, Don Russel with the SP was one such problem. He was cheap and figured coupling that with an efficiency drive would save the SP in the long run. And this was in the 50s, they weren't in the "oh my God we're dying!" state of mind yet. As for boneheaded decisions, one case study that surprisingly isn't one is the Rock Island, Milwaukee Road and Chicago & Northwestern all pinning their hopes on merging with Union Pacific to save them. Two of the three didn't have contingency plans and died eventually with that as a contributing factor.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Jul 15, 2021)

jebr said:


> I'm not sure the argument is as strong for the efficiency of traveling in a sleeper car pulled by a diesel locomotive over air travel, particularly mainline jet travel. I'm not convinced that jet travel is significantly better, either, just that they're probably in the same ballpark.



Yeah sorry about that, I missed some of what you were saying. 

Long distance trains can actually become more efficient with how many cars are added - so the sleeper space and diner isn’t necessarily a problem.

While taking a train from nyc to LA might be worse per passenger mile than the flight... the flight only has the set number of passengers where trains will pick up and discharge many passengers between nyc and la - so the numbers get a bit iffy there.

The newer diesel locomotives are also much more efficient - so that helps. 

But yes there would be a few routes where it gets tricky and ultimately we need more electric railways in this country - it’s a shame brightline isn’t building electric.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Jul 15, 2021)

jebr said:


> According to Amtrak's "Travel Green" website, they state that Amtrak is 34% more energy efficient than flying, and "up to 73% fewer emissions." The emissions claim is unsourced and has an up-to, while the 34% more energy efficient comes from the 2021 U.S. Department of Energy Data Book. That publication has a warning on both graphs that talk about it (the main one, not including power distribution losses, and the secondary one that includes power distribution losses):
> 
> "Great care should be taken when comparing modal energy intensity data among modes. Because of the inherent differences among the transportation modes in the nature of services, routes available, and many additional factors, it is not possible to obtain truly comparable national energy intensities among modes. These values are averages, and there is a great deal of variability even within a mode."
> 
> ...



This is absolutely true.
In coach, I do believe rail travel is _probably _more efficient in cross country travel.
In sleeper class, taking into account everthing that needs to happen to make it work, I'm not sure if its more effiecient than a Jetblue flight across the country.

Again, givin that Amtrak is currently running 100 year old technology on the majority of its routes (not just locos but also with rolling stock), and new Boeings and Airbuses are actually pretty incredibly efficent, I think the jury is still out.

Until America gets serious about electrifying more of its rail routes, we are unequivocally handicapped. The Cato institute will continue its anti-train field day, and rail will continue to suck for all of us.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Jul 15, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> I’ve never seen airplanes full of business travelers. Certainly you’ll see business travelers on an airplane but there are many routes (Orlando, Vegas) where you’re likely to see all tourists.



Just as I defended the train when someone suggested only tourism, I think its even dubious to claim air routes like Orlando and Vegas are exclusively leisure. I would put good money on it always being split on every single flight.

People have work in all cities. Orlando and Vegas are certainly no exception. My dad worked 30 years as a bond guy at a Boston firm. He traveled to Vegas frequently because the nice hotels were great places to have buisness meet-ups. It became a fun thing for him, and he brought my mom a few times. When he wasnt tied up with work, they could do fun things.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Jul 15, 2021)

Tlcooper93 said:


> Just as I defended the train when someone suggested only tourism, I think its even dubious to claim air routes like Orlando and Vegas are exclusively leisure. I would put good money on it always being split on every single flight.



Well... depends on the airline and the time of flight. Certainly people travel to Orlando and Vegas for business, I know I have! But I’ve been on flights to both where the vast majority were certainly in tourist mode. 

I’m trying to think if I’ve ever been on a flight that seemed as exclusively business as the Acela between Washington and NYP.


----------



## Exvalley (Jul 15, 2021)

One thing the airlines have figured out is how to extract money from business trave


crescent-zephyr said:


> Certainly people travel to Orlando and Vegas for business, I know I have!


Both of those cities have a very robust convention business.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Jul 15, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> Well... depends on the airline and the time of flight. Certainly people travel to Orlando and Vegas for business, I know I have! But I’ve been on flights to both where the vast majority were certainly in tourist mode.
> 
> I’m trying to think if I’ve ever been on a flight that seemed as exclusively business as the Acela between Washington and NYP.



The difference in purpose of travel between Acela passengers and NE Regional passengers is remarkable. The type of people you encounter on the Acela (especially in first class) is mostly non-leisure travel.
Very interesting!

Of course, this is undoubtedly due to the fact that Boston, NYC and DC are all on the Acela route.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jul 15, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> Well... depends on the airline and the time of flight. Certainly people travel to Orlando and Vegas for business, I know I have! But I’ve been on flights to both where the vast majority were certainly in tourist mode.
> 
> I’m trying to think if I’ve ever been on a flight that seemed as exclusively business as the Acela between Washington and NYP.


In the old days of the "Eastern Shuttle" between Washington,Boston.and New York, there were mostly Business Travelers during the week, and on the Metro Liners and Acelas on the NE then and now.


----------



## nendee (Jul 15, 2021)

many in business go to vegas or Orlando at least twice a year (pre-Covid). Technology/Business-conventions are a must attend for many in business.


----------



## railiner (Jul 15, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> I’m trying to think if I’ve ever been on a flight that seemed as exclusively business as the Acela between Washington and NYP.



Try a 5:00 PM Chicago to New York flight on AA or UA…


----------



## Trollopian (Jul 15, 2021)

jiml said:


> The problem with battery technology is only now the environmental impact of manufacturing them and disposing of old ones starting to get attention. Advocating them as the ideal replacement for fossil fuels may amount to short-term virtue signalling more than actual practicality.



And the environmental cost of the electric power generation required to recharge them. Most of the U.S. grid is still "dirty" and reliant on fossil fuels, especially to satisfy marginal demand. An interesting article on why the environmental benefits of electric vehicles are probably exaggerated: Is It Time to Go “All In” on Electric Vehicles? | Econofact.

The U.S. likes subsidies and dislikes taxes. Never mind that a carbon tax is the obvious way to go and would let the market, not central planners, pick the winners and losers.


----------



## Exvalley (Jul 15, 2021)

Trollopian said:


> And the environmental cost of the electric power generation required to recharge them. Most of the U.S. grid is still "dirty" and reliant on fossil fuels, especially to satisfy marginal demand.


I agree with you that our grid is much "dirtier" than it should be.

However, EVs are still much cleaner as far as fuel is concerned even if the fuel comes from coal or gas electric plants. This is because EVs are MUCH more efficient than gas powered vehicles. The article you cited completely failed to factor this in.

My EV goes about 240 miles on a full charge in warm weather. The energy equivalent of a full charge is equal to about 2.1 gallons of gasoline. If I use the heat, the range drops to about 130 miles in the winter, but that's equal to about 65 miles per gallon - and that's in the absolute worst winter weather.


----------



## Qapla (Jul 15, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> I’ve never seen airplanes full of business travelers. Certainly you’ll see business travelers on an airplane but there are many routes (Orlando, Vegas) where you’re likely to see all tourists.



I think you are making my point ... many of the posts I read about LD travel not being practical seem to concentrate on "business" travel, especially when compared to flying - so, one would think that only business people fly.

The fact is, planes, trains and cars carry business and pleasure travelers on a regular basis and there are room for all these modes of transportation. Improving the rail system in this country does not mean the death of cars or planes - as many seem to make it sound.


----------



## railiner (Jul 15, 2021)

Like everything else, future technology will find a "greener" way to produce electric storage devices and recycle them when the time comes. And wind, solar, and hydro-electric production of electricity will make that "greener", as well....


----------



## DonNewcomb (Jul 15, 2021)

fhussain44 said:


> .......hey don't realize that it is actually faster than flying. .....


 In cases where that's true, well and good. There are places, between which, it makes no sense to fly. Almost anywhere in the Acela corridor, for instance. In my particular case, any place between here and Atlanta, it's quicker to drive and any place beyond Atlanta, it's more convenient to fly. The train's only on the radar for whimsy's sake.


----------



## George Harris (Jul 15, 2021)

Exvalley said:


> I agree with you that our grid is much "dirtier" than it should be.
> 
> However, EVs are still much cleaner as far as fuel is concerned even if the fuel comes from coal or gas electric plants. This is because EVs are MUCH more efficient than gas powered vehicles. The article you cited completely failed to factor this in.
> 
> My EV goes about 240 miles on a full charge in warm weather. The energy equivalent of a full charge is equal to about 2.1 gallons of gasoline. If I use the heat, the range drops to about 130 miles in the winter, but that's equal to about 65 miles per gallon - and that's in the absolute worst winter weather.


These MPG equivalence numbers sound very extreme. I would love to see the calculations that produced these values. Also not being considered would be the needed increase in capacity of our electrical system, and the number of houses/apartments that would need upgrades in the capacity of their service entrances in order to have the capacity to charge the cars. Never forget the issues with materials, manufacturing, and disposal of the batteries. I am sure by now most of us have learned that batteries in our phones and computers have a finite life. Cars will not be any different, except the batteries will be MUCH larger.

When we go back to building large nuclear plants we might be getting more rational, but as long as we are generating electricity using current other-than-nuclear technology we won't be. 

The reason we see no electrification on freight lines is that it makes no sense. We actually are electrified, it is just that the engine is carrying the power plant on its back. The weight on drivers is required for traction, particularly in territory with significant grades. The modern diesel is sufficiently efficient that it is questionable whether the efficiency of central plant generated BTU's produced would be enough to balance out transmission losses and additional system maintenance sufficiently to make it viable over the current diesel locomotive, which far exceeds that of steam locomotives or even the earlier diesel models.


----------



## Exvalley (Jul 15, 2021)

George Harris said:


> These MPG equivalence numbers sound very extreme.



You don't have to take my word for it. The official government rating for my car is 119 mpg.






Fuel Economy of the 2019 Chevrolet Bolt EV


2019 Chevrolet Bolt EV. Search by make for fuel efficient new and used cars and trucks




fueleconomy.gov


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Jul 15, 2021)

George Harris said:


> The reason we see no electrification on freight lines is that it makes no sense.



It can make sense in some situations. It will be interesting what the future holds for railroading.


----------



## Larry H. (Jul 15, 2021)

This no doubt has been pointed out already, I haven't read every page, but the cost is surely a factor. The article a couple days ago from a reporter between NY and Chicago pointed out it cost over 500 dollars in a roomette, the cheapest bedrooms on the trains, or to fly in a few hours for 80.00 or so dollars. That makes a big difference to many. Yes I enjoy the trip and time doesn't matter, but the fare structure from the days of "Streamliner" service in the 50s has changed putting ever more cost on a bedroom fare. I know some here will say not, but I distinctly recall in the early 60s that a step up to a room over the cost of coach was far less than they charge today. And often the trains ran with 5 or more sleepers for those cost. Not to mention usually deluxe first class lounges and often dinner and observation domes and rear fan tail seating. So we pay way more and in reality get a much downgraded product in many cases. Hopefully Amtrak is learning finally that people do want a decent meal other than a radar range heater substandard concoction they get to day, or did get for the past couple years. The person on the Lake Shore mentioned that the food was near junk status he couldn't even stand to eat. I had a couple of those my self on the City of New Orleans and that alone has often kept me from taking the train again. Who knows how many have been driven off by the mismanagement of the trains.


----------



## Danib62 (Jul 15, 2021)

Trollopian said:


> And the environmental cost of the electric power generation required to recharge them. Most of the U.S. grid is still "dirty" and reliant on fossil fuels, especially to satisfy marginal demand. An interesting article on why the environmental benefits of electric vehicles are probably exaggerated: Is It Time to Go “All In” on Electric Vehicles? | Econofact.
> 
> The U.S. likes subsidies and dislikes taxes. Never mind that a carbon tax is the obvious way to go and would let the market, not central planners, pick the winners and losers.





Exvalley said:


> I agree with you that our grid is much "dirtier" than it should be.
> 
> However, EVs are still much cleaner as far as fuel is concerned even if the fuel comes from coal or gas electric plants. This is because EVs are MUCH more efficient than gas powered vehicles. The article you cited completely failed to factor this in.
> 
> My EV goes about 240 miles on a full charge in warm weather. The energy equivalent of a full charge is equal to about 2.1 gallons of gasoline. If I use the heat, the range drops to about 130 miles in the winter, but that's equal to about 65 miles per gallon - and that's in the absolute worst winter weather.


Also fails to consider that a gas car will always be a gas car whereas our mix of energy sources for electrical generation is transitioning more and more to renewables.


----------



## jruff001 (Jul 15, 2021)

Qapla said:


> So, were the freight railroads actually "losing" money or just not making "enough profit" for the bean counters?


From my understanding (which does not include purely speculative conspiracy theories), in probably 99% of the cases they were actually losing money.

But, it really doesn't matter. If they could have made more money running a freight train over their limited infrastructure than they could have made running a passenger train, they would want to get rid of the passenger train. And in fact they would have had an obligation to their owners / shareholders to do so.

It's like wondering why an airline doesn't fly from A to B nonstop because "no doubt that route would be profitable." Maybe, but if it can use the same airplane to fly from C to D (or A to C, or whatever) nonstop instead and make even MORE money, that is what it is going to do with its limited resources.


----------



## zephyr17 (Jul 15, 2021)

According the Fred Frailey in Twilight of the Great Trains, SP kept close track of directly attributable above the rail cost. If a train was breaking even, they'd leave it alone. Once it went in the red, they'd go after it. They then used allocated indirect costs to make cost performance look worse to regulators.

Also in Twilight of the Great Trains passenger-friendly Santa Fe, in deciding whether or not to join Amtrak, estimated that passenger losses would wipe out all freight profits by 1975 if Santa Fe had to operate their entire then existing fleet, as the legislation called for.

Yes, the losses were real. Bear in mind, to discontinue a train they had to prove it was a "burden" on interstate commerce to the ICC. They could not just discontinue trains at will.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Jul 15, 2021)

jruff001 said:


> It's like wondering why an airline doesn't fly from A to B nonstop because "no doubt that route would be profitable." Maybe, but if it can use the same airplane to fly from C to D (or A to C, or whatever) nonstop instead and make even MORE money, that is what it is going to do with its limited resources.



What major airlines (other than southwest) have flights that aren’t nonstop?


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jul 15, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> What major airlines (other than southwest) have flights that aren’t nonstop?


ALL of Them!


----------



## west point (Jul 16, 2021)

The C-2035 listed many trips Springfield <>New Haven. If that number holds up electrification of that route appears very likely.


----------



## jruff001 (Jul 16, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> What major airlines (other than southwest) have flights that aren’t nonstop?


Sorry, I don't understand your question or what you are getting at.


----------



## railiner (Jul 16, 2021)

jruff001 said:


> Sorry, I don't understand your question or what you are getting at.


Think it may refer to multi stop flights, as opposed to out and back to same hub?


----------



## railiner (Jul 16, 2021)

With some exceptions, the hub system pretty much ended those multi stop flights…


----------



## jis (Jul 16, 2021)

How do people tell if someone is traveling for business or pleasure just looking at them?

The reason I ask is that my entire department back in HP which was involved in standards and architecture work and endlessly traveled on business to various corners of the world to attend meetings, generally traveled in jeans and T shirt kind of outfit and half of them refused to pull out their laptops other than to watch movies on flight. How would you differentiate such a traveler from a leisure traveler?

For this reason I suspect the eyeballed estimate of business travelers is most likely an undercount.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Jul 16, 2021)

jruff001 said:


> Sorry, I don't understand your question or what you are getting at.



I’ve never been on a multi-stop flight other than southwest. Do any of the major carriers have them?


----------



## jis (Jul 16, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> I’ve never been on a multi-stop flight other than southwest. Do any of the major carriers have them?


Multi-stop flights as in a sequence of flights where each segment has the same flight number, do exist, but typically you have to disembark and embark at each stop, and there may be an equipment change at some of those stops including to a different gauge equipment.

AFAIK SWA is one of the few, if not the only one that allows people to sit in the aircraft at an en-route stop of such a flight. Incidentally such are called "Direct" flights in airline parlance.

The same flight number thing has some regulatory relevance in terms of which Freedom of the Air is being used in international flights. Other than that, purely in domestic flights I am not sure what it means except for some operational convenience for the operating airline perhaps.


----------



## jruff001 (Jul 16, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> I’ve never been on a multi-stop flight other than southwest. Do any of the major carriers have them?


I must not have been clear because I wasn't referring to multi-stop flights, so my apologies for the confusion. I'll try again.

People sometimes wonder why an airline doesn't serve City A because "it would be profitable." Maybe so, but if the airline can make MORE profit serving City B and doesn't have sufficient resources to serve both, it will not serve City A even though it could have made some profit by doing so.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jul 16, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> I’ve never been on a multi-stop flight other than southwest. Do any of the major carriers have them?


I've flown direct flights on Singapore Airlines and I believe Qantas also had them. I guess the closest to Southwest would have been Continental Micronesia.


----------



## jis (Jul 16, 2021)

Devil's Advocate said:


> I've flown direct flights on Singapore Airlines and I believe Qantas also had them. I guess the closest to Southwest would have been Continental Micronesia.


Many international airlines have them in order to use one of the freedoms of the air. I remember back in the '70s when Air India flew to the US via London, it was allowed to carry US - UK sector passengers because it was the same flight continuing to India. If the flight numbers between India and London had been different from the one for London to New York, this would not have been allowed given the Bermuda II agreement.

United's round the world flight involved multiple gauge changes on the same flight number around the world too, as did its predecessor on those routes Pan Am, though Pan Am in its hey day mostly used 747s, and before that 707s..

Continental Micronesia and the follow on United in Micronesia has indeed always been an interesting operation which has had a lot of multi hop flights serving a series of islands. I wonder if Aloha and Hawaiian have something similar around Hawaii.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Jul 16, 2021)

jruff001 said:


> I must not have been clear because I wasn't referring to multi-stop flights, so my apologies for the confusion. I'll try again.
> 
> People sometimes wonder why an airline doesn't serve City A because "it would be profitable." Maybe so, but if the airline can make MORE profit serving City B and doesn't have sufficient resources to serve both, it will not serve City A even though it could have made some profit by doing so.



Oh ok. I did misunderstand. It seems to be planes go just about everywhere so I’m not sure I agree this is a good example. Air travel would make the most sense with only a few major hubs and rail and bus transportation connecting cities to those hubs. Instead we have short 20 minute flights connecting airport to airport. Crazy.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jul 16, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> I’ve never been on a multi-stop flight other than southwest. Do any of the major carriers have them?


Thanks for the Posters that cleared this up.

It's been awhile since I flew regularly, and Airline scheduling has been in a constant state of Flux during the Pandemic.


----------



## railiner (Jul 16, 2021)

I believe Alaska still has some serving the Aleutian’s or Northern Alaska…


----------



## daybeers (Jul 16, 2021)

west point said:


> The C-2035 listed many trips Springfield <>New Haven. If that number holds up electrification of that route appears very likely.


I really hope so! Perfect candidate IMO.


----------



## jpakala (Jul 16, 2021)

I can attest that business people use Amtrak between Chicago and two cities on the line to St.Louis: Springfield and Bloomington/Normal, IL. Many students use the train to the latter from both north and south on the St. Louis line. Years back a relative was going to fly from St. Louis to Springfield, IL on American and the price was way over $1,000 or $500 without any ability to make a change. Moreover the route was via O'Hare with a change of planes there, and took much longer than train, which cost about $50. (I think these were round-trip but in any case American later stopped serving the route.)


----------



## neroden (Jul 17, 2021)

Exvalley said:


> I agree with you that our grid is much "dirtier" than it should be.
> 
> However, EVs are still much cleaner as far as fuel is concerned even if the fuel comes from coal or gas electric plants. This is because EVs are MUCH more efficient than gas powered vehicles. The article you cited completely failed to factor this in.
> 
> My EV goes about 240 miles on a full charge in warm weather. The energy equivalent of a full charge is equal to about 2.1 gallons of gasoline. If I use the heat, the range drops to about 130 miles in the winter, but that's equal to about 65 miles per gallon - and that's in the absolute worst winter weather.


UCS did the math on how "clean" EVs are in each local electricity grid in the US -- carbon emissions equivalent, well-to-wheels. *Far* better than gas cars, mostly because gasoline engines are frighteningly inefficient.









Plug In or Gas Up? Why Driving on Electricity is Better than Gasoline


Electricity power plant emissions data and the latest assessments of fuel emissions and vehicle efficiency show 97 percent of people in the US live where driving an EV would produce fewer emissions than a 50 mpg gasoline car.



blog.ucsusa.org













Electric Vehicles are Cleaner than Gasoline— and Getting Better


Electric vehicles will be an important part of the US transportation future—especially when charged by a clean electricity grid.




www.ucsusa.org







https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/2020-05/evs-cleaner-than-gasoline.pdf






George Harris said:


> These MPG equivalence numbers sound very extreme. I would love to see the calculations that produced these values.


DONE. I know they surprise you but they are fact.


----------



## neroden (Jul 17, 2021)

jebr said:


> Well, electrified passenger rail, anyways. I'm honestly not super-convinced that taking a roomette outside of the NEC today, where we're still using diesel engines, is all that much better than taking a commercial flight somewhere. Until we build electric rail infrastructure on more Amtrak routes (where the trains can take advantage of improvements to the electric grid's carbon footprint) I don't think the argument that a roomette is super green compared to a coach (or domestic first) flight holds up.



Flights are really terrible in terms of carbon emissions. Really awful. Yes, a roomette is better. 

Technically, adding one person to a plane or train which is already running never has any significant emissions. So the only way to figure this is to look at the average: if everyone who was on a flight switched to a train (in roomette!) would that reduce emissions. It would, because flights are awful. Going up in the air, fighting gravity, uses a lot of fuel and generates a lot of emissions.

Whether the roomettes, led by diesel engines, are cleaner than driving electric cars from NY to Chicago... I haven't checked those numbers. Railroad diesel engines are pretty efficient compared to automobile gasoline engines, partly because they're larger and partly because they spend more time running at "optimal speed" (due to the electric transmission, something also present in certain hybrid cars but not in normal gasoline cars); and with lower rolling resistance a train is more efficient than a car; so it is probably still better, but it's not as much of a slam-dunk as vs. flights, which are terrible.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Jul 17, 2021)

neroden said:


> Flights are really terrible in terms of carbon emissions. Really awful. Yes, a roomette is better.
> 
> Technically, adding one person to a plane or train which is already running never has any significant emissions. So the only way to figure this is to look at the average: if everyone who was on a flight switched to a train (in roomette!) would that reduce emissions. It would, because flights are awful. Going up in the air, fighting gravity, uses a lot of fuel and generates a lot of emissions.
> 
> Whether the roomettes, led by diesel engines, are cleaner than driving electric cars from NY to Chicago... I haven't checked those numbers. Railroad diesel engines are pretty efficient compared to automobile gasoline engines, partly because they're larger and partly because they spend more time running at "optimal speed" (due to the electric transmission, something also present in certain hybrid cars but not in normal gasoline cars); and with lower rolling resistance a train is more efficient than a car; so it is probably still better, but it's not as much of a slam-dunk as vs. flights, which are terrible.



Unless you have hard numbers, I’m in disagreement. Taking Amtrak from NYC to LA is not as efficient as taking an A321 or 737. Regulations prevent the idling that used to occur regularly, and airplanes and engines have changed

You claim taking every passenger on a plane and putting them in a roomette would be more emmission friendly.
Let’s not even address the energy intensive things that go into providing sleeper service like water consumption, traditional dining, linens, and waste. Let’s just look at fuel and emissions.

Newer aircraft, like the Airbus A350 and Boeing 737MAX, consume on average less than 1.2 gallons per 100 passenger miles. This fuel consumption is comparable to that of compact cars, although aircraft travel much further and faster.

Your blanket (and pretty obviously unresearched) statement “Going up in the air, fighting gravity, uses a lot of fuel and generates a lot of emissions,” doesn’t account for the nuance of what we are discussing here.

Airplanes pollute a lot, but they pollute a lot for a short period of time. When a plane descends, pilots throttle back to idle (or close to it). So your talk of fighting gravity is really simplistic.

A old Genesis locomotive (or 2-3 in a consist), pollutes for a minimum of 90 hours when a passenger crosses country by train. A full western LD consist is usually around 300 people, and an eastern LD consist is similar (or less) though most are not traveling to end points on either one.

Based on a report from Dec 2010 a P42 averages between 2.2 and 2.5 gallons per train mile. In the figures we are using for comparison that would be between .4 and .46 miles per gallon. 

When United runs triple 7s on their KSFO - KBOS around New Years due to a spike in demand, they manage to carry the same amount (or more) for 2,300nm. If you want I could pull up ForeFlight and do the fuel burn numbers for a B777 just to really get into the nitty gritty of it rather than continued blanket speculations.


The short haul flight market is where this discussion starts to become more obvious. It’s no secret that on flights shorter than 300 miles, an train would win every time.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Jul 17, 2021)

Tlcooper93 said:


> Translate that to passenger miles per gallon (let’s say 100 for an all roomette train) and we have roughly 46 passenger miles per gallon.



The western trains already have a capacity of over 100 in sleeping cars (in normal times) So an all roomette train would accommodate a few hundred, depending on how many cars.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Jul 17, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> The western trains already have a capacity of over 100 in sleeping cars (in normal times) So an all roomette train would accommodate a few hundred, depending on how many cars.


Right, but it’s unlikely every single bunk would be filled. Many travel alone in roomettes.

that said, let’s say a generous 6 sleepers are in the consist for the highly unlikely situation of all 264 total berths being filled.

taking 264 people 90 hours across country with all of the amenities for sleeper class is not exactly an efficient way to travel.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Jul 17, 2021)

Tlcooper93 said:


> Right, but it’s unlikely every single bunk would be filled. Many travel alone in roomettes.
> 
> that said, let’s say a generous 6 sleepers are in the consist for the highly unlikely situation of all 264 total berths being filled.
> 
> taking 264 people 90 hours across country with all of the amenities for sleeper class is not exactly an efficient way to travel.



What would it be compared to air?


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Jul 17, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> What would it be compared to air?




A United 777-200ER - max gross fuel is roughly 45,000 US gallons (though it will be less for a transcontinental flight). In a 2 class consist of 310 pax traveing 2340 nm from SFO - BOS. Translating to 5.85 gallons per mile, 77 gallons per passenger mile. These figures change every flight, and going east uses less fuel than going west as you're not fighting the winds.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Jul 17, 2021)

Tlcooper93 said:


> A single P42: *.46 gallons per mile* - For a train with 200 passengers, that translates to roughly 92 gallons per passenger mile. However, there is never one single locomotive in the consist.
> 
> A United 777-200ER - max gross fuel is roughly 45,000 US gallons (though it will be less for a transcontinental flight). In a 2 class consist of 310 pax traveing 2340 nm from SFO - BOS. Translating to *5.85 gallons per mile*, 150 gallons per passenger mile. These figures change every flight, and going east uses less fuel than going west as you're not fighting the winds.



Why are you comparing 200 passengers on a train to 310 on a plane?

A typical western consist would hold 310. So why not compare 310 to 310?


----------



## jis (Jul 17, 2021)

Tlcooper93 said:


> A single P42: *.46 gallons per mile* - For a train with 200 passengers, that translates to roughly 92 gallons per passenger mile. However, there is never one single locomotive in the consist.
> 
> A United 777-200ER - max gross fuel is roughly 45,000 US gallons (though it will be less for a transcontinental flight). In a 2 class consist of 310 pax traveing 2340 nm from SFO - BOS. Translating to *5.85 gallons per mile*, 150 gallons per passenger mile. These figures change every flight, and going east uses less fuel than going west as you're not fighting the winds.


It might be worthwhile carefully reconsidering your calculation for passenger mile


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Jul 17, 2021)

jis said:


> It might be worthwhile carefully reconsidering your calculation for passenger mile



Considering how good you are at researching and looking up these things, I'll defer to you.
I did the numbers for the aircraft on ForeFlight, so I'm farely confident in those, but the train ones very well could be incorrect. It was done with only 30 minutes of research.
Feel free to add your own corrections. 

EDIT: Found an error for my flight calc, and adjusted


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Jul 17, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> Why are you comparing 200 passengers on a train to 310 on a plane?
> 
> A typical western consist would hold 310. So why not compare 310 to 310?



He was mentioning an all sleeper train (6 sleepers, plus a diner and cafe and SSL would make for a long train to begin with).


----------



## jis (Jul 17, 2021)

If a train carrying 200 passengers one mile requires 0.86 Gallons then surely the gallons per passenger mile calculation would be 0.86 / 200 and not 0.86 x 200, no?


----------



## Siegmund (Jul 17, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> I’ve never been on a multi-stop flight other than southwest. Do any of the major carriers have them?



A decade ago they were still very common on Alaska and Horizon. Not just Fairbanks - Anchorage - Seattle, but lots of run-throughs like Anchorage-Seattle-Phoenix, so that they could advertise lots of direct service. They never made you disembark at the intermediate terminal for those.

A quick look at the current Alaska schedule reveals those have mostly dried up. (They didn't dry up just "because of the hub system", but the drying up was much more recent.) There are still Southeast Alaska "milk runs" with 3 or 4 stops, as well as quite a several one-stop flights each day like Anchorage-Juneau-Sitka, Juneau-Sitka-Seattle, and Juneau-Ketchikan-Seattle.

I used to use Horizon's "triangle" flights Boise-Idaho Falls-Pocatello-Boise quite a lot. I thought it was a great practical solution to serving low volume markets, and it meant Idaho Falls got 4 flights a day instead of just one or two. Like most great practical solutions it got dropped about ten years ago


----------



## neroden (Jul 17, 2021)

Tlcooper93 said:


> Unless you have hard numbers, I’m in disagreement. Taking Amtrak from NYC to LA is not as efficient as taking an A321 or 737.



OK, conceded, very-long-haul in very large planes might be more efficient, particularly if the train route is taking a lot of curves while going up and down mountains. I don't actually care, because the number of people who are going to consider trains on such three-day routes are... basically just the people who will not fly at all, like me. Even if the trains have lower carbon emissions on such a route, they take so much longer that few people will switch. The cross-Rockies trains are present for people who cannot fly.

I was thinking about stuff like NYC to Chicago or DC to Chicago. Or NYC to Miami -- at the longest. Or Buffalo to Chicago and Syracuse to Chicago -- the last of which is my typical trip. Chicago to Detroit, Detroit to NYC. Those are the ones where I did look up the numbers a while back. These single overnights can be time-competitive with flying, if you consider the overnight to be an alternative to sleeeping in a hotel room (the time spent sleeping doesn't really count against the travel time).

These are *much shorter trips*. Maximum 1300 miles, not 2700. A much larger percentage of the flight time is going up in the air and down again. Coasting is the efficient part of the flight; taking off and going up is the part which generates massive emissions. These routes are also, invariably, done in smaller planes. Think MD-80 (or whatever they replaced it with), not 737.

Try the fuel usage numbers on NY-Chicago with an all-sleeper train vs. a jet with the same capacity. I don't think it'll be difficult to see which has higher emissions -- the airplane.


----------



## neroden (Jul 17, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> Why are you comparing 200 passengers on a train to 310 on a plane?
> 
> A typical western consist would hold 310. So why not compare 310 to 310?


Yes, you have to do this. Trains can be made as long as necessary. You have to compare identical passenger counts; it's the only way to make the comparison at all.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Jul 17, 2021)

Tlcooper93 said:


> He was mentioning an all sleeper train (6 sleepers, plus a diner and cafe and SSL would make for a long train to begin with).



No. 6 sleepers plus diner and ssl is not a long train to begin with. That’s a typical Amtrak western consist just swapping out 3 coaches for 3 sleepers.


----------



## neroden (Jul 17, 2021)

LSL typically runs 10 to 12 cars; the Silvers used to run *18* back in the day and the platforms are still long enough for it. Passenger trains can be, and have been, even longer than that without difficulty.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Jul 17, 2021)

neroden said:


> OK, conceded, very-long-haul in very large planes might be more efficient. I don't actually care, because the number of people who are going to consider trains on such three-day routes are... basically just the people who will not fly at all, like me.
> 
> I was thinking about stuff like NYC to Chicago or DC to Chicago. Or NYC to Miami -- at the longest. Or Buffalo to Chicago and Syracuse to Chicago -- the last of which is my typical trip. Chicago to Detroit, Detroit to NYC. Those are the ones where I did look up the numbers a while back. These single overnights can be time-competitive with flying, if you consider the overnight to be an alternative to sleeeping in a hotel room (the time spent sleeping doesn't really count against the travel time).
> 
> These are *much shorter trips*. Maximum 1300 miles, not 2700. A much larger percentage of the flight time is going up in the air and down again. Coasting is the efficient part of the flight; taking off and going up is the part which generates massive emissions. These routes are also, invariably, done in smaller planes. Think MD-80, not 737.



touche! Short haul flights, in my opinion, need to end! Though, I'd be curious where the cutoff is for distance/emission ratio.

MD-80's and 737's are roughly the same size, and have the same range/fuel/capacity constraints, so therefore would fulfill the same market.
Of course, the many variants of a 737 do make it complex, but 737's are a short-medium haul aircraft. The MD80 and 737 classical were introduced around roughly the same time as well. The only reason the 737 was further developed into a medium to semi-long haul aircraft was to meet the demand created by the 757 retirment void.

In terms of fuel burn, airplanes burn significantly less on decent, and it ends up being roughly canceled out in terms of ascent and descent.



crescent-zephyr said:


> No. 6 sleepers plus diner and ssl is not a long train to begin with. That’s a typical Amtrak western consist just swapping out 3 coaches for 3 sleepers.



That's all fine.
My point still stands. I don't believe a three day, all sleeper, P42 pulled train is more efficient than the new airliners on trans continental (or even Chicago-west coast) distance.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Jul 17, 2021)

Tlcooper93 said:


> That's all fine.
> My point still stands. I don't believe a three day, all sleeper, P42 pulled train is more efficient than the new airliners on trans continental (or even Chicago-west coast) distance.



Umm... your own math doesn’t seem to support that unless I missed something.


----------



## tonys96 (Jul 17, 2021)

Just a couple of anecdotes.
My beautiful wife, known here as Whiterabbit, recently flew from DFW to Phoenix and back. Her flight out was delayed due to mechanical problems for an hour. For a 2.5 hour flight. That is appx 40% of the scheduled *travel* time as a delay. On her way back her flight was delayed a whopping 4 hours due to weather problems somewhere (it was clear there and here in DFW, so I cannot attest to what the weather problem was). That is appx 160% of the scheduled *travel* time.
So in those terms a train ride of say for instance, 30 hours of scheduled* travel *time, that was late on arrival at the endpoint of 12 hours would equivalent, and return trip that was late by 48 hours would be equivalent.

In actual hours it is all a lot less, but in perspective of scheduled *travel* time, most trains are pretty decent.

Just an anecdote, as always, YMMV.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Jul 17, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> Umm... your own math doesn’t seem to support that unless I missed something.


Fair enough. 
Perhaps you'd like to show your math then.


----------



## Ziv (Jul 17, 2021)

I am trying to catch up on this thread but it took me til now to realize that although it is 800 miles from Penn Station to Chicago Union Station (by car) that it takes 20 hours for the LSL to make the trip. Holy Heck! I realize that going via Albany, Rochester and Buffalo adds a lot of miles but, man! I thought that it would be a 16 to 18 hour trip which is a bit long for a sleeper train but 20 hours is pretty much too long to attract business travelers. Even if the NY to Chicago sleeper had a nearly direct line, it would need to travel at better than 60 mph average for the 900 miles it would take on a shorter route to make it in a reasonable time give 79 mph max speeds. And 15 hours would mean that leaving NY at 7pm would pretty much guarantee that you arrive in Chicago after 10am, which is going to make business travel problematic.
Given our pokey max speeds in the US it looks like city pairs for overnight trains would have to be less than 700 miles apart to keep the total trip time under 12 hours. 
Sorry for having stated what has been obvious for most of the rest of you, but I hadn't put the numbers together until now. we really need IC speeds of 125 mph on a substantial part of the Amtrak system to make most city pairs work for an overnight sleeper service. Europe has a lot of large'ish cities that are between 400 and 700 miles apart. The US does not. An American overnight train that averages 90 mph instead of 55-60 mph would mean that the 700 mile radius of acceptable city pairs would be more like 1000 miles which would really open up the map a good bit.
Again, sorry for stating the obvious but I didn't realize just how bad the LSL was for overnight business travel.



Tlcooper93 said:


> In principle, I agree. NYC-Chicago is a very poorly planned, and underutilized market. OH politics are partially the reason though.
> 
> If the transportation politics there looked a little more like VA, we’d have a much different situation, and maybe a more rail friendly state, with routes in between some of the major cities in OH.


----------



## zephyr17 (Jul 17, 2021)

The 20th Century Limited made the trip over essentially the same route as the Lake Shore in 16 hours. Of course, it made a lot fewer stops and those it did make were either receive only or discharge only.

The distance shown from GCT to La Salle St Station is 960.7 miles. It was doing an average of 60 mph inclusive of all stops and servicing.

Source is the January 1961 Official Guide.

Of course, the 20th Century owned the railroad, and much of the line was quadruple track east of Buffalo.


----------



## zephyr17 (Jul 17, 2021)

PS, the Pennsy's Broadway Limited had the same 16 hour running time over a shorter 907.7 route, averaging nearly 57 mph. But the Pennsy had more grades and curves than NYC's "Water Level Route".


----------



## west point (Jul 17, 2021)

I beg to differ about fuel on descent . For a JT8D-15 at a cruise altitude depending on weight of aircraft fuel consumption rate is about 2100 #/hour. At idle descent fuel rate starts about 900 # linear until at about 10,000 feet between 1100# and 1200 # / hour. Usually some power will be needed for any of various reasons once going below 10,000 feet


----------



## toddinde (Jul 17, 2021)

crescent-zephyr said:


> I’ve never been on a multi-stop flight other than southwest. Do any of the major carriers have them?


No, I don’t believe so. Southwest is the only one.


----------



## toddinde (Jul 17, 2021)

zephyr17 said:


> According the Fred Frailey in Twilight of the Great Trains, SP kept close track of directly attributable above the rail cost. If a train was breaking even, they'd leave it alone. Once it went in the red, they'd go after it. They then used allocated indirect costs to make cost performance look worse to regulators.
> 
> Also in Twilight of the Great Trains passenger-friendly Santa Fe, in deciding whether or not to join Amtrak, estimated that passenger losses would wipe out all freight profits by 1975 if Santa Fe had to operate their entire then existing fleet, as the legislation called for.
> 
> Yes, the losses were real. Bear in mind, to discontinue a train they had to prove it was a "burden" on interstate commerce to the ICC. They could not just discontinue trains at will.


I suspect that many trains covered their direct costs and probably made a modest profit. What killed them was that some railroads really melted down in their service, and when the connections got bad, that killed patronage on other trains. It has to be a national system, or it doesn’t work.


----------



## Larry H. (Jul 17, 2021)

George Harris said:


> These MPG equivalence numbers sound very extreme. I would love to see the calculations that produced these values. Also not being considered would be the needed increase in capacity of our electrical system, and the number of houses/apartments that would need upgrades in the capacity of their service entrances in order to have the capacity to charge the cars. Never forget the issues with materials, manufacturing, and disposal of the batteries. I am sure by now most of us have learned that batteries in our phones and computers have a finite life. Cars will not be any different, except the batteries will be MUCH larger.
> 
> When we go back to building large nuclear plants we might be getting more rational, but as long as we are generating electricity using current other-than-nuclear technology we won't be.
> 
> The reason we see no electrification on freight lines is that it makes no sense. We actually are electrified, it is just that the engine is carrying the power plant on its back. The weight on drivers is required for traction, particularly in territory with significant grades. The modern diesel is sufficiently efficient that it is questionable whether the efficiency of central plant generated BTU's produced would be enough to balance out transmission losses and additional system maintenance sufficiently to make it viable over the current diesel locomotive, which far exceeds that of steam locomotives or even the earlier diesel models.



Personally I agee that they environmentalist are probably in for a rude awaking in both environment damage from mining for batteries and other minerals And the wind generators around here are a total eyesore for those who have to contantly hear them swishing as they turn. However a Nuclear plant has a terrible impact should something go badly like they had in Japan and Russia. Too much risk for me even if they are efficent.


----------



## DonNewcomb (Jul 18, 2021)

Tlcooper93 said:


> One of my feelings is that train travel in general is so out of the public consciousness and comfort that the thought of trains providing any reasonable alternative to driving/flying is just not in the question; most are surprised by the level of service provided on the NEC.


When I would travel on business to Japan or Europe, I'd have to argue with my travel office about why they were going to fly me from Tokyo to Osaka or Oslo to Trondheim when I could take the train just as quickly or quicker. They had a airline mindset. If you wanted to go any other way, you were probably up to something. They didn't even seem to have provisions to book train transportation. You had to do that on your own and get reimbursed later.


----------



## Bluejet (Jul 19, 2021)

west point said:


> I beg to differ about fuel on descent . For a JT8D-15 at a cruise altitude depending on weight of aircraft fuel consumption rate is about 2100 #/hour. At idle descent fuel rate starts about 900 # linear until at about 10,000 feet between 1100# and 1200 # / hour. Usually some power will be needed for any of various reasons once going below 10,000 feet


It’s still pretty minimal compared to cruise and climb. A v2500 and a pw1100g are between 600-800lbs/hr in descent in an a321ceo/neo. Fuel burn on the takeoff roll up to 10,000 can be as high as 12,000lbs/hr per engine. Cruise depending on weight is between 2500-3200 lbs/hr/eng depending on ceo vs neo and weight.


----------



## TC_NYC (Jul 19, 2021)

There are so many routes that Amtrak could successfully market a 6pm departure and a 8am arrival that currently have heavy airline traffic they could capture from, but it would require reworking the train schedules and getting money from states, since nearly all the routes are under the threshold for LD Service.

CHI-MSP 
Currently 19 flights per day (only checked O'Hare airport)
Currently a 7' 45" train ride. Could depart CHI 10pm, arrive into MSP 7am.

CHI-DTW
Currently 18 flights per day (only checked O'Hare airport)
Currently a 6' train ride. Could depart CHI 10:30pm, arrive into Detroit at 6am (or later with some more schedule padding).

CHI-KCY
Currently 10 flights per day (only checked O'Hare airport)
Currently a 7' train ride. Could depart CHI 11:00pm, arrive into Kansas City at 7am. 

NYP-BUF
Currently 12 flights per day (looking at all 3 NYC airports)
Currently a 8' train ride. Could depart NYP at 10pm, arrive into Buffalo at 7am.

NYP-PGH(Pittsburgh)
Currently 15 flights per day (looking at all 3 NYC airports)
Currently a 9' train ride. Could depart NYP at 9pm, arrive into Pittsburgh at 7am.

SEA-EUG
Currently 10 flights per day
Currently a 7'18" train ride. Could depart SEA at 10pm, arrive into Eugene at 6am.

SEA-SPK
Currently 21 flights per day
Currently a 8' train ride. Could depart SEA 10:30pm, arrive into Spokane at 7am.

The list could go on and on. Granted some of these flights have connecting passengers, but there's plenty of O&D traffic at these airports. I could see a lot of business travelers looking to avoid 6am flights (which many companies booking software forces to be booked, as they're usually the lowest price). Going to Pittsburgh from NY for a 9am meeting? I'd much rather be arriving on Amtrak then flying down at 6am out of LaGuardia.


----------



## Qapla (Jul 19, 2021)

Regardless of how profitable some new routes could be - unless the freight railroads that own the tracks agree ... it doesn't even matter how good the idea is, how many riders it could attract or how willing Amtrak is - it won't happen


----------



## TC_NYC (Jul 19, 2021)

Qapla said:


> Regardless of how profitable some new routes could be - unless the freight railroads that own the tracks agree ... it doesn't even matter how good the idea is, how many riders it could attract or how willing Amtrak is - it won't happen


Amtrak seems to be doing a good job playing hardball with NS & CSX for the new corridor to Mobile. If they notch a win on this route, it could lead to more wins on overnight corridors like the above.


----------



## sttom (Jul 19, 2021)

As mentioned before, overnight trains are not just for people going from city center to city center in either terminus. People like me could very easily be traveling from one suburb to another. It’s not like downtowns of major cities have a monopoly on office space. Someone could very easily be traveling from Fairfield to Ventura for business or Albuquerque to Littleton. Not having to get up at 0 dark 30 for a flight and take Uber across town would also be a selling point if Amtrak ever had a lie flat seat priced to be competitive on these sorts of trips. Which also brings up another point that Amtrak would have to sell to companies. The fact that you don’t have to pay for a hotel if you make them fly at the end of the day or make someone get up early as hell to avoid paying for a hotel on a one day trip.


----------



## MARC Rider (Jul 19, 2021)

TC_NYC said:


> There are so many routes that Amtrak could successfully market a 6pm departure and a 8am arrival that currently have heavy airline traffic they could capture from, but it would require reworking the train schedules and getting money from states, since nearly all the routes are under the threshold for LD Service.
> 
> CHI-MSP
> Currently 19 flights per day (only checked O'Hare airport)
> ...


Even if every single one of these city pairs could support a well-patronized overnight train, the vast majority of people traveling between each city pair will probably be either driving, flying or using a day train, if available. Compare with Northeast Regional 65/66/67 -- The sleeper has a capacity of about 30 passengers, but usually carries a lesser number. The coaches can hold a couple of hundred passengers, but many (most) of them are not necessarily riding the entire distance, as it's used by commuters for early morning arrivals. Even if you ran the train with 5 sleepers, that's a maximum capacity of 150 people, or the load of one airplane. Clearly, although an overnight train can possibly be practical and even successful, it will always serve a niche market, unless there is some cataclysmic event that makes commercial aviation impossible. Thus, if you're running a taxpayer-supported passenger rail service, providing such an overnight train is going to be a lower priority than providing daytime corridor service that can also serve intermediate stations and thus serve a larger potential market.


----------



## Qapla (Jul 19, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> if you're running a taxpayer-supported passenger rail service, providing such an overnight train is going to be a lower priority than providing daytime corridor service that can also serve intermediate stations and thus serve a larger potential market.



I guess the same reasoning could be used when planning additional highways or expansion of current ones ... if they are not being used mostly by overnight travelers, then, since they are tax-payer supported, perhaps they shouldn't be built or expanded.

Then again, the view of various tax-payer supported transportation endeavors seems to differ depending on whos lobbying influence holds the purse strings to those making the decisions.

For real benefit to the tax-payers, flying, driving and rail should all be supported with equal enthusiasm - and we all know that is not currently the case.


----------



## NES28 (Jul 19, 2021)

I have been monitoring this thread for a while. There are a few routes that are long enough to support overnight service also serve an almost continuous string of cities and thus have the potential to provide daytime corridor service, connecting multiple city pairs, as well. Boston-NYC-DC-Newport News is an example. Chicago-Cleveland-Buffalo-NYC has the potential to be another one. In addition to the Lake Shore Limited it already serves as a corridor east of Buffalo, with several daytime trains. Chicago-Cleveland has been proposed for corridor service. But to be truly successful, both of these corridors need to be faster, i.e. faster than driving, and have more frequent service (perhaps every two hours). An interesting blog post on this concept appears here: Thoughts on a New York - Chicago unified corridor . Chicago-Indianapolis-Nashville-Atlanta-Florida is another one. A problem that needs to be resolved is that these corridors are longer than 750 miles and, thus, by definition are long distance, requiring Amtrak to operate them without outside support. Legislation will be required to establish a special category for such routes.


----------



## Mailliw (Jul 20, 2021)

A huge obstacle to running European-style night trains in the US is lack of a budget high density sleeping option like couchettes. Instead of ditching couchettes Nightjet has focused on ways to make them better, like improved bedding and attendants to provide room service. They even solved their biggest drawback, lack of privacy, with capsule hotel like pods for solo travelers in their next generation rolling stock. The new couchette cars will have a very respectable 40 pax capacity, most of which will be individual accommodation.


----------



## nendee (Jul 20, 2021)

We need a practical Musk or Branson privatization of this. This vacuum tunnel Musk is working on is not the answer. Would it be possible to buy right of way to create private, modern train travel? That had all the latest bells and whistles (electric train, space saving “sleeper chairs”, great WiFi, free smart screen, good food, ability to bring your Tesla “Tesla owners ride at half price!”, fast and direct routes)


----------



## Qapla (Jul 20, 2021)

Brightline has been trying this and have met major slowdowns from the NIMBYS ...


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Jul 20, 2021)

nendee said:


> We need a practical Musk or Branson privatization of this. This vacuum tunnel Musk is working on is not the answer. Would it be possible to buy right of way to create private, modern train travel? That had all the latest bells and whistles (electric train, space saving “sleeper chairs”, great WiFi, free smart screen, good food, ability to bring your Tesla “Tesla owners ride at half price!”, fast and direct routes)



Somehow, throwing billions upon billions at space is for the good of all mankind... not that it doesn’t have its merits. But surely there are better endeavors for the good of many.

The answer more or less is yes. Someone with enough will, vision and $$ could make it happen. But it doesn’t mean it’s the best answer.

Also, privatization is not always the answer for providing a public service for the good of all.

Given that privatizing is incentivized by money, and not by providing a public good, they can pull the plug at any moment they deem appropriate (like during a pandemic). Anyone who would rely on that “public” transportation would be screwed.

Amtrak, through thick and thin, manages to consistently provide a service (no matter how bad and bare bones it gets).

An ideal for me, would be a mix of the two. Government operation competing against private operations (like Europe), ensuring the competition stays relevant. Amtrak would up it’s game, and others would be incentivized to keep upping their game.


----------

