# What Type Of People Ride Amtrak



## Loui1 (Jun 16, 2008)

What type of people do you find on Amtrak trains? I'm a grad student, live a block from the Amtrak station, and am curious what really draws people to ride. The recent fuel cost spike has made me think twice about driving or flying, but when I look at Amtrak it just really miff's me that they sell any tickets other than short commuter based travel. I see on-time percentages below 50%, it costs more, and takes 10 times longer. Am I missing something?

I wanted to go from Lafayette IN to Harrisburg PA, and the trip would take about 24 hours, have a 70% chance of being delayed, and costs about $200 more than a plane ride.


----------



## RailFanLNK (Jun 16, 2008)

1.Have you never been delayed on a plane?

2.Have you been stuck in an airport for a day(s)? Do you find being jammed into a plane with 300 people, screaming infants due to pressurization fun?

3. Are you attempting to book a fare on Amtrak during the summer and booking 3 weeks out? You can book 11 months in advance with Amtrak and pretty much cancel coach fare up to the day you travel with 100% refund and no hassles. Booking 11 months out gets you the best fare. Ever check an airline flight a few days before boarding? Generally alot higher.

4.Can you bring 2 carryons to the plane? No!

5.Can you bring 2 carryons onto Amtrak plus a personal bag such as a purse or laptop and not be charged extra for it? Yes!

6. The longest delay travelling on Amtrak I have had is 12 hours due to flooding. I was comfortable, well fed, got to sleep in my roomette, had privacy and didn't care. The longest delay with the airlines has been 24 hours. I was p.o.ed, uncomfortable, had 2 hours of sleep. Couldn't leave the airport because there was 400 people in front of me in the Customer Pimping Desk Was lied to and not given a full refund for the hotel I got to sleep in for 2 whole hours.

7. Do you have to be at the Amtrak station just down the street from your place almost 2 hours early for security and fight to find parking, pay for parking, leave your car there to be stolen, broken into or hailed on? No!

8. How's the food (itty bitty bag of pretzels) on your latest flight? Did it fill you? Did you share how good the food was on the plane with your fellow family members? Probably not.

I had never taken Amtrak until two years ago. Now I simply loath flying. I'm wired for 110 and always going 220, the train gives me an opportunity to sleep, read, doze, meet my fellow passengers, unwind and enjoy the trip. None of those attributes comes on an airplane. If you decide to ride Amtrak, keep your behind parked here, ask questions, learn about rail travel and don't hop on an Amtrak train blind. We are here to help and this forum was HUGE in getting me in the right frame of mind before my inaugural trip in 2006.


----------



## Walt (Jun 16, 2008)

The train ride *IS THE VACATION*. Or at least part of it. Much like the question, why would anyone bother to take a cruise to the Bahamas, when flying there is so much more quick.

At least for me, my kid and I can go "first class" (sleeper) to Orlando for only $100 more (round trip) than airline coach. Instead of having to stand in line after endless line at the airport, we go directly to the Acela Lounge. When the time comes, the attendant comes and gets us, and we take an elevator directly down to the train's platform.

On board, we get more food than I typically should eat. :lol:

While trains do get delayed, *so do planes*. And Amtrak treats me so much better, when it happens, than any airline I have ever flown with. I mean, once I am on the train, I have my room (roomette), and the dining car keeps feeding me. Try getting stuck on a plane that's just sitting on the tarmac for hours, and getting the flight attendant to serve you a steak.

Plus, as a personal note, I am very susceptible to blood clots in my legs if I sit for too long. On a train, I am free to "walk around the cabin" (ok, walk around the train), whenever I feel like it.


----------



## MrFSS (Jun 16, 2008)

Another problem you would have with a flight is, as I understand it, there are no commercial flights in/out of Lafayette, IN. You'd have to get yourself to either Indianapolis or Chicago to catch a plane.

The train from Lafayette to Chicago and then Chicago to Harrisburg has quite a wait time between trains. While that adds to the overall travel time, it would give you time to enjoy Chicago, have a nice meal, etc.

All sorts of folks ride Amtrak.

There are many people who, for various reasons, won't fly.

Many don't/can't drive.

Taking the train can be part of the entire vacation experience, if that is your reason for travel.

Yes, the plane can be less expensive and usually much quicker. Trains let you get up close with the country side and also with the other passengers on the train.


----------



## Eris (Jun 16, 2008)

If you go coach, a quick look at fares show $78 each way from lafayette to harrisburg, so certainly that's not what you're comparing to flying if it's $200 more (unless the airlines are paying people to fly?). If I add a roomette for the overnight between chicago and pittsburgh, I'm able to find them for right around $100 each way, which brings the total fare to around $360 round trip for one person, but that's only $520 for two people, $260RT each. Looking at Travelocity for the same time period I'm looking at the Amtrak rates (mid-september), I'm seeing $400RT per person for Chicago to Harrisburg and $250RT for Indianapolis to Harrisburg.

What fares are you seeing?

Riding the train is SO much more relaxing than dealing with flying that I would choose it even for a premium (I have to live through those hours anyway, why not do it on the train?), but it can actually be pretty cost-competitive.


----------



## wayman (Jun 16, 2008)

MrFSS said:


> The train from Lafayette to Chicago and then Chicago to Harrisburg has quite a wait time between trains. While that adds to the overall travel time, it would give you time to enjoy Chicago, have a nice meal, etc.


Excellent point--it just occurred to me that someone unfamiliar with train travel (and comparing it to the airline model) might assume one can't leave the station during a layover and that there's nothing to do but sit and wait and eat awful food until the next train is ready to depart.

With train travel, all you have to do is be ready to board about half an hour before the scheduled departure time. "Ready to board" means having shown up at the station and made your way to nearby the gate. There are no lines or hassles to delay you in getting to that point. Thus, you're generally free to head out of the station and enjoy the city for a while.

Most train stations are right downtown, as opposed to most airports being well outside of town. When you exit Chicago Union Station, you're two blocks from The Loop, and have plenty of time to eat a good meal, do some shopping, stroll around, visit the Art Institute, hang out in Millennium Park, whatever strikes your fancy. Many stations have luggage lockers where you can stow your carry-on bags if you don't want to be burdened with them while exploring the city. Chicago does; I think it's something like $9/24-hours for a locker big enough (for me) to sleep in. You can also buy a day-pass on the CTA at Union Station for $5 and take all the buses and El trains you like, if you prefer that to walking around.

Everything the others have said are also excellent points. What it boils down to for me: plane travel is stressful; train travel is relaxing. Just about every angle of direct comparison between the two boils down to that: travel from home to the station, how much in advance you have to show up, baggage checking procedures and policies, agonizing lines you have to stand in, how much "hurry up and wait" there is, how invasive the security is, the quality and availability of food, the scenery, the ability to move about freely, the seat sizes and leg room and overhead room, the on-board service crew, the fellow passengers, the likelihood retrieving your bags will go smoothly, the proximity of your destination station to where you're actually going.

You'll encounter delays with both sorts of travel. When delayed on an airplane, you're stuck in an uncomfortable seat in a small cabin with no food and many grumbling people and unhappy children. When delayed on a train, you can wander about, get food, admire scenery, and chat with fellow passengers in a more comfortable environment which tends to lead to everyone being in a better mood to start with.

I've never made a friend on an airplane. I've made lots on trains.


----------



## had8ley (Jun 16, 2008)

Just give him a free pizza pass to Giordanos while he's in Chicago and he'll be like the rest of us~ can't get enough of trains!


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jun 16, 2008)

Loui1 said:


> What type of people do you find on Amtrak trains? I'm a grad student, live a block from the Amtrak station, and am curious what really draws people to ride. The recent fuel cost spike has made me think twice about driving or flying, but when I look at Amtrak it just really miff's me that they sell any tickets other than short commuter based travel. I see on-time percentages below 50%, it costs more, and takes 10 times longer. Am I missing something?


Amtrak basically does not sell cheap last minute tickets the way the airlines currently do. (Though in 6-12 months, there may not be so many cheap last minute airline tickets.) If you compare airline bookings 10 months in the future with Amtrak bookings 10 months in the future, do you see the same cost differences?

Whether it takes 10 times longer depends a lot on where you were going. I bet it doesn't take 10 times longer if you were going to Chicago instead of Harrisburg. Or Indianapolis, for that matter.

A lot of the problem is the sad state of investment in rail in this country. Whether or not you find the current service useful, it has some value in keeping stations intact that we will need in the future when we do invest in more attractive service. It may also be helpful in keeping tracks in place and keeping a relationship active between Amtrak and the freight railroads.

Amtrak has a limited number of mothballed 30 year old coaches and some spare diesel-electric locomotives, and otherwise does not have extra equipment available to meet growing demand, and since they're still operating under rules handed to them by the United States Congress where they're suppose to try to make a profit, the natural thing for them to do is to raise ticket prices. Even once Congress finishes working out the details on a bill that will change Amtrak's mission of making a futile attempt at profitability, Amtrak will have a choice between having last minute tickets being completely unavailable, or having them be pricy.

With investment in double tracking where freight railroads ripped up the second track decades ago, faster tracks, more direct routes, and additional rolling stock, a lot of these problems could go away. If you had a 15 year old automobile that took 6 months to get replacement parts for because Congress had passed a law rationing automobile parts, would you be wondering why anyone ever uses an automobile? Amtrak is about as neglected as that hypothetical hard to repair automobile, if you're trying to come up with a fair comparison between the potential of automobiles and the potential of trains.

I find travel by sleeping car extremely pleasant compared to any other form of long distance travel I've ever encountered. If I were going from, say, the Albany train station to Chicago, the wall clock time is pretty much irrelevant because of that pleasantness, and because I'd be spending most of the train ride eating and sleeping, and I have never slept so comfortably while traveling by any other form of land travel or by airplane. In pratice there's also unfortunately a five hour non-sleeper train ride between the Albany train station and Boston, but that train ride is still more pleasant than taking a plane to Chicago (or Indianapolis, for that matter).



Loui1 said:


> I wanted to go from Lafayette IN to Harrisburg PA, and the trip would take about 24 hours, have a 70% chance of being delayed, and costs about $200 more than a plane ride.


That is indeed an example of a route that's just not very direct under the present system. I think with some serious investment, we could probably have an Indianapolis to Pittsburgh train that could continue to Harrisburg. Or we could have faster Chicago to Harrisburg train service (I think it could be done in about 4 hours if we merely made a decent attempt at catching up with the French). And we could have more frequent Indianapolis to Chicago trains that go through Lafayette that could shorten the connection time.


----------



## Guest (Jun 16, 2008)

_"What type of people do you find on Amtrak trains"_

It partly depends on where you get on and where you get off. Some of us are tourists or railfans, some of us are commuters, some of us have no other wheels, some are reminensing (sp) about the days when train travel was in its glory. There are rich and poor, famous and infamous, students and professors, race fans, voodoo queens and priests. In other words, it's a stew.... pretty much like our country... and the sheriff (the conductor) travels with you.

Hands down, it's a more enriched way to travel than by plane. An airport has to be off somewhere to avoid disturbing its neighbors. A train may drop you within a block or so from the US Capitol and otherwise let you see something besides the tops of clouds. My knuckles don't get white when a train glides off nor do I lose the contents of my stomach as I might when a plane makes a sudden unexplained drop in altitude. Your seat neighbor can recline without putting his head in your lap and should you answer nature's call it's not as difficult a chore as it is on an airplane. I re-entered the Amtrak world after making a 300 mile monotonous drive, arriving frazzled and realizing the train paralleling the interstate at times was Amtrak. Now, I try to figure out how to make every trip an Amtrak trip.


----------



## ourlouisiana (Jun 16, 2008)

We'll agree with Walt.... the train trip is the vacation.

Donna bought tickets in December to fly from NOL to PHL to see her son during the Easter break. The price then was the same as Amtrak's

Crescent. SHe was there in PHL before I got back to LFT. The train ride is 28 hours. When we left home, she hadn't slept well the night before, was nervous the entire trip to NOL (3 hours) and got upset with the delays at the security checkpoints at the airport.

We planned out vacation last December. We were going to PHL by train, in a sleeper. Several problems at my office caused us to have to change our plans many times. At one time, the trip had become NOL to WAS, and return the same afternoon. The trip was the vacation.

More changes forced us to change our trip to Chicago, then we were able to add a few extra days, so that it will be more than just the trip, but the trip is still the vacation.

We have to add, with all these changes we made, the employees at Amtrak have always had a pleasant attitude - " sure we can do that, not a problem, we're here to serve you ".

We're leaving NOL this Friday, watching the weather in the midwest, hoping for no problems...... we don't want to be bussed to Chicago !!!!


----------



## George Harris (Jun 16, 2008)

What kind of routing did Amtrak give you, and are you trying to go coach or sleeper?

I see two potential routes that are all rail:

One:

Lafayette to Chicago: lv 8:02am, ar Chicago 10:35am, cool your heels in Chicago all day, then

Chicago to Pittsburg: lv 7:05pm, ar Pittsburg 5:30am

Pittsburg to Harrisburg: lv 7:20am, ar Harrisburg 12:45 noon.

Two:

on Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday only:

Cardinal through to Philadelphia, then Keystone train

Lv Lafayette 9:58pm, Ar Philadelphia 8:01pm next day.

Depending upon timliness of arrival, the Keystone train available would be at

Monday to Friday:8:15pm arriving Harrisb. at 10:00pm or at 10:45pm arriving Harrisburg at 12:29am

Saturday/Sunday/Holiday, 8:45pm, arriving Harrisb. at 10:30pm, a little close.

You could reduce your train time significantly if you get yourself to South Bend. According to Mapquest, that is 106 miles and about 2.5 hours from Lafayette. Slow time is because no interstate. Then, from South Bend you are looking at

South Bend to Pittsburg: lv 9:33pm, ar Pittsburg 5:30am

Pittsburg to Harrisburg: lv 7:20am, ar Harrisburg 12:45 noon.

Your train time is now down to a little over 15 hours.

Also, if you went the Cardinal route (via Cincinatti and West Virginia), if Baltimore was satisfactorialy close, the arrival time there is shown as 6:46pm.

Note concerning the Cardinal: All stops Washington DC to New York are discharge only, so if you arrive on time in Washington, you could be arriving early at points northeast thereof.

Trains are not planes they stop at quite a few points other than their origin/destination points.


----------



## the_traveler (Jun 16, 2008)

No, Amtrak may not sell cheap for the next day, Amtrak does sell their tickets by the "bucket system" - that is once a certain amount of tickets are sold, the price for the remaining tickets rise to the next "bucket". But unlike the airlines, these are not set days (like 30 days in advance, 21 days, 14 days, 7 days, etc...) Thus today's train could be in the lowest bucket! Try to go to the airport to buy a seat on today's flight for the price you could have bought that same ticket for 6 months ago! (Good luck trying to stop their laughing!)

What type of people ride Amtrak? All kinds - just like you'll find any other place! Just like you find people driving who stay at Motel 6, some MUST stay at no less than the Presidential Suite at the Ritz! And just like on a plane, some go economy and some MUST go First Class!


----------



## darien-l (Jun 16, 2008)

I was a grad student myself not too long ago (got my Ph.D in 2006), and I really enjoy traveling Amtrak in part because it offers an opportunity to catch up on work. I bring my laptop with me, plug it in, and type away. I've had some of my most productive sessions on a train -- I finished a chapter of my dissertation, for example, while en route from Houston to Tucson. There is a lot of room to spread out on long distance trains, even in coach -- the seats are about as roomy as first/business class seats on an airplane, plus I can work in the cafe or observation car, too.


----------



## Spokker (Jun 16, 2008)

Big kids, little kids, kids who climb on rocks!

Fat kids, skinny kids, even kids with chicken pox!


----------



## sweet tea (Jun 16, 2008)

the first time i started a vacation with a long train trip, i arrived -- even counting a longish delay -- feeling like i had just had the best massage of my life. i was SO relaxed -- and this was after sleeping in coach. my first day off the train, i felt ready to run around and enjoy my trip, not just decompress from work stress.

something i love about taking the train when visiting my and my partner's families at the holidays is that our time on board is like our secret little vacation together, hidden in the spaces between our family time. if we said to her mother "we're flying up from little rock tonight, then spending the night in a hotel; we'll be at grandma's in the late afternoon tomorrow," it would go over like the hindenberg, but since we're traveling, we get some time together without family bustle, which makes us more ready to enjoy (or tolerate, depending) the bustle upon arrival.

on the train, you arrive downtown. when we had a 2-hour layover between trains in chicago last christmas, we trotted out and had bratwurst at the german fair downtown. we could never have done that from o'hare.

on the train, you get a microcosmic view of the world, different from the macrocosm view from a plane. they both have their charms. i love getting settled in our roommette, changing into the silk jacket i like to wear on board (hey, if i'm going to do a thing, i do it right), putting my feet up, and watching the sun set over the hudson while i sip my wine. to mangle emily dickinson, i like to see the the miles get lapped.


----------



## RRrich (Jun 16, 2008)

had8ley said:


> Just give him a free pizza pass to Giordanos while he's in Chicago and he'll be like the rest of us~ can't get enough of trains!


Give *HIM *a free pizza pass to Giordano's??? Hell, give one to ME!!


----------



## Loui1 (Jun 16, 2008)

I appreciate all of your replies, but I guess the current system just isn't conducive to my travel needs. From the types of replies I'm seeing, people who take Amtrak have plenty of time and like to meander along the countryside and want to see all the sites. Plus, they're really bothered by the crowds associated with airports and security. From my perspective, sure, planes get delayed too, but their original travel time is not already dragged out. Security lines really dont bother me much, and even at big airports I've never seemed to have any big delays. I traveled across France last summer by rail and know the amount of relaxation you can get on a train, but my wife and I still felt tired after a 6 hour ride in a 1st class quiet car. I cant imagine how a 3 hour, 9 hour, and 5 hour ride would feel within the same day.

Any way I try to look at it, there's no logical way I can reason spending that much money for that much travel time. Is there anything the average joe can do to help change the current system?? Pray to the gas gods that fuel prices keep increasing???

I'm from Chicago, a Bachinos pizza gift certificate would be far better than Giordanos!


----------



## WhoozOn1st (Jun 16, 2008)

One largely unmentioned aspect of Train vs. Plane - maybe of real concern to those I call "flyophobes" - is that in the event of engine failure one is not immediately placed in an emergency situation if riding a train. And you can't fly a train into a building. Air travel is very safe, and I actually like it, but for the best travel experience - taking purposes for travel into consideration - I'll take Amtrak every time if it's a viable option for me.


----------



## the_traveler (Jun 16, 2008)

Plus, the view is better at 5-10 feet than it is at 35,000 feet


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jun 16, 2008)

WhoozOn1st999 said:


> One largely unmentioned aspect of Train vs. Plane - maybe of real concern to those I call "flyophobes" - is that in the event of engine failure one is not immediately placed in an emergency situation if riding a train. And you can't fly a train into a building. Air travel is very safe, and I actually like it, but for the best travel experience - taking purposes for travel into consideration - I'll take Amtrak every time if it's a viable option for me.


Any plane used in scheduled passenger service these days is going to be built so that losing an engine out of its more than one engines just shouldn't matter unless the engine goes out of its way to destroy other parts of the plane in the process. (Many piston twins struggle to maintain altitutde on a single engine, and the piston twins also require typically more of the pilot in correctly managing the thrust that's all concentrated on one side; I'm not at all convinced that a piston twin is safer than a single engine piston plane, especially if the pilot falls short of being excellent. But I haven't heard of scheduled passenger piston flights lately (or even scheduled passenger turboprop flights, for that matter).)

Airplanes actually are slightly safer than trains per passenger mile if Wikipedia can be trusted, but they're both so safe that you can more or less count on dying on the short car trip to/from the plane or train if you die during your trip. When I took the train from Boston to Chicago last month and then got a ride with my parents (who were coming from West Lafayette) to Madison and and was talking to them from Massachusetts or New York, and they were wishing me a safe trip, I reminded them that the dangerous part was the part after they picked me up. (However, that whole trip turned out to be perfectly safe.)

On the other hand, people with health issues may find that as long as they're not travelling through an especially desolate area, an ambulance can probably meet a train at a station or a grade crossing much faster than a plane can land to meet an ambulance.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jun 16, 2008)

George Harris said:


> You could reduce your train time significantly if you get yourself to South Bend. According to Mapquest, that is 106 miles and about 2.5 hours from Lafayette. Slow time is because no interstate. Then, from South Bend you are looking atSouth Bend to Pittsburg: lv 9:33pm, ar Pittsburg 5:30am
> 
> Pittsburg to Harrisburg: lv 7:20am, ar Harrisburg 12:45 noon.
> 
> Your train time is now down to a little over 15 hours.


My father mentioned to me that there is a shuttle van that runs several times a day between the Chicago airport and the West Lafayette airport; advanced reservations are required. I suspect that using that shuttle van and taking the L between O'Hare and Chicago Union Station would be sigificantly faster than a pure train route. I don't know if the shuttle van is a small enough operation that it might stop at the train station in Chicago if someone asked nicely.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jun 16, 2008)

Loui1 said:


> Any way I try to look at it, there's no logical way I can reason spending that much money for that much travel time. Is there anything the average joe can do to help change the current system?? Pray to the gas gods that fuel prices keep increasing???


Call or write to your representatives in the United States Congress, and their counterparts in the state legislature. Those are the people who determine how much money is available to Amtrak.


----------



## abqdave (Jun 16, 2008)

Train travel is greener than planes or cars, especially if you have public transit systems on either end you can connect to. In my case, if I claim to be concerned about global climate change, I have to be willing to make some 'adjustments' when I travel to support public transportation.

You might think about time differently...for example, although train travel is longer, if you are flying to your destination and land in late afternoon, then stay at a hotel overnight and don't really start your visit until the next morning, staying on the train overnight and arriving the next morning might not really result in much of a time loss.

If it costs a little more...think of it as supporting a green cause.

If you meet some types of people on the train you wouldn't normally interact with...a broader cross-section of society will add spice to your life.

If you liked how the trains worked in France...we won't get TGV service here unless more and more people use trains and demand that kind of service.


----------



## Gingee (Jun 16, 2008)

I understand your feelings of getting there faster with a plane. I hate flying. I did it this year after 29 years of driving and recently going by train. I got in the plane in February and could not believe how squished we were. I could not wait to get off that plane. Yes it does take long to go by train but I do enjoy it especially when we have private rooms (not so this coming summer).

Type of people? My husband works for one of the "Fortune 500" companies and I am a preschool teacher. Taking my daughter and her boyfriend (both college kids).

I just consider it part of the vacation.


----------



## puck71 (Jun 16, 2008)

Exactly. I don't think train travel will just magically improve in this country if people keep saying, "Oh, I'll wait until it's faster and more convenient." If you want train travel to flourish in this country I think you have to put your money where your mouth is and ride trains as much as possible/feasible. Of course you have to weigh your time, schedule, and route, and it might not always make sense, but at least take a look before settling for a plane.

Speaking personally, I haven't taken a long train trip yet (I'm only 25!) but did take a couple short trips on the NEC last summer and thought it was great. This summer I plan to go to Seattle, and (living in Fargo) the Empire Builder is perfect. At least it sounds perfect, I haven't actually done it yet! It won't work for everyone in every situation, but from what I've read on here it sounds like it should be fun. I don't think I've ever called a flight fun.


----------



## Railroad Bill (Jun 16, 2008)

One of the best parts of going Amtrak is the interesting people you meet on the train. Our last trip was a Russian computer programmer, a forest ranger, two people who live in Anchorage, Alaska, Amish families, two young men heading to "railroad engineer training school", 25 4th graders taking a quick field trip through Glacier National Park, an Austrailian couple traveling across our country, two Seattle residents heading to Boston to see a baseball game at Fenway Park, an oil man who is a Democrat, an environmentalist who wants to talk "Green" and so many more. As one comedian once expressed "VAT A GREAT COUNTRY DIS IS"

We love riding trains because it is restful, stressless, exciting, sometimes challenging, scenic, and cheaper than driving. Will not fly.

Try it one time and you might get hooked! We did

Railroad and Mrs. Bill


----------



## Dan O (Jun 16, 2008)

Loui1 said:


> What type of people do you find on Amtrak trains? I'm a grad student, live a block from the Amtrak station, and am curious what really draws people to ride. The recent fuel cost spike has made me think twice about driving or flying, but when I look at Amtrak it just really miff's me that they sell any tickets other than short commuter based travel. I see on-time percentages below 50%, it costs more, and takes 10 times longer. Am I missing something?
> I wanted to go from Lafayette IN to Harrisburg PA, and the trip would take about 24 hours, have a 70% chance of being delayed, and costs about $200 more than a plane ride.


I am married w/ 4 kids and make a decent wage. I just completed an Los Angeles to Chicago and back to LA trip this past week. If I wanted to get to Chicago quickly I would have flown. But I wanted to share an adventure w/ my two oldest kids. Plus I read a book and did about 7-8 hours of work on crafts. So very productive I thought. I got to see some of America I had seen and some I hadn't in a long while. Plus Chicago was great. CAn't wait to go back w/ all of my family. If you just want to get from point A to point B the quickest, train travel may not always be the best. If you want an adventure while you travel, maybe it is.

DanO


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jun 16, 2008)

abqdave said:


> Train travel is greener than planes or cars, especially if you have public transit systems on either end you can connect to. In my case, if I claim to be concerned about global climate change, I have to be willing to make some 'adjustments' when I travel to support public transportation.


The average Amtrak traveler's trip is more fuel efficient than the average automobile or airplane traveler's trip in this country.

I'm not sure that implies that taking a Lafayette to Harrisburg trip by train instead of automobile or plane this month or next month using the infrastructure America has in 2008 is actually good for the environment. The number of train miles vs automobile miles may mean that the train trip actually would consume more fuel than the automobile trip. Additionally, if one Lafayette to Harrisburg traveler ties up a seat on several trains that could have saved two people airplane trips if those people had been able to make short train trips instead, we may not be coming out ahead. Jet engines burn a _lot_ of fuel per hour at low altitutde (such as during takeoff) relative to higher altitudes. A lot of the fuel cost of a plane trip is per takeoff+landing, and then there's another component of the cost that's proportional to the distance traveled. Saving the Amtrak seats for the short distance travelers when there aren't enough of them to go around may be good for the environment (although maybe Amtrak will decide to refurbish some of those mothballed Amfleet Is and maybe even adjust the seat pitch in the process to lengthen some of the trains if there's enough demand, so it's not quite that simple to judge).

(The number of airplane trips and train passenger miles basically won't change much because of one person's booking if Amtrak and the airlines can keep their load factors high, but someone else who was determined to travel who now can't get a plane ticket will perhaps just drive instead of canceling their trip entirely.)

But there's another really subtle issue that I haven't studied far enough yet: electrified rail routes can very easily be powered without importing energy into this country; they could probably be powered almost entirely from any of coal, nuclear power, or wind without importing energy. Planes, automobiles, and diesel locomotives all require an energy source that needs to be largely imported to meet current demand. I believe there's currently a trade deficit. The raw cost of these things in dollars may not be the only thing to look at if some of these are going to destroy the value of the dollar and others aren't.

For long train trips, you also have to be careful about claiming that the train is greener, because taking a sleeping car becomes tempting, and much as I love sleeping cars, I'm a little skeptical that they're greener than flying first class, just because a sleeping compartment reduces the number of passengers in the car so much relative to a coach.

Then again, if you could take a sleeper on a route that was electrified the whole way (currently impossible in the US, unless you want to count the New York to DC segments as being meaningful sleeper trips by themselves) and powered using a very clean energy source (we don't yet have enough wind power for that to really be the case), it might turn out that even if the sleeper consumes more BTUs than the airplane, that the cleaner fuel would turn out to be a win by enough to make up for the extra BTUs.



abqdave said:


> If you liked how the trains worked in France...we won't get TGV service here unless more and more people use trains and demand that kind of service.


I don't think increasing the amount of time I spend riding MBTA buses (currently very little, since they get stuck in traffic and/or don't run frequently, and the subway system works better for most places I want to go) would prompt the state of Massachusetts to build the North South Rail Link, which sort of feels equivalent to what you're suggesting.

We also need to upgrade all the existing curvy track routes as far as we can even if we do start building lots of TGV quality track, because the high speed track, as France has carried it out, tends to run through unpopulated areas (and with US attitudes towards eminent domain, I can't see us doing things differently here, though maybe we can refrain from building stations in the middle of nowhere like the French have), and we need local train service through populated areas, too.


----------



## WhoozOn1st (Jun 17, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> But I haven't heard of scheduled passenger piston flights lately (or even scheduled passenger turboprop flights, for that matter).


Actually I see scheduled turboprops almost every time I'm waiting for a train at OXN. United Express puddlejumpers approaching from LAX (the airport) I believe. OXN is almost directly under the approach to Oxnard Airport (OXR), which is mostly general aviation, so on clear days there's no lack of aerial entertainment while waiting for a train. Even been on several turboprops into/out of Oxnard. A fun little flight to connect with the pure jets at LAX. In the good old days you could tack that feeder onto a United reservation for next to nothing; don't think it's like that anymore.


----------



## gswager (Jun 17, 2008)

If the rail fare is a little high for you, try change the travel dates, either a day early or later or whenever.


----------



## jackal (Jun 17, 2008)

WhoozOn1st999 said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> > But I haven't heard of scheduled passenger piston flights lately (or even scheduled passenger turboprop flights, for that matter).
> ...


Horizon (a western regional airline owned by the same company that owns Alaska Airlines) operates Bombiardier CRJs and turboprops, and they're in the process of getting rid of their RJs as turboprops are much more fuel-efficient (slower but better on gas).

Era and PenAir up here operate a mostly turboprop fleet with a few piston-engine aircraft thrown in there. They do exist...


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Jun 17, 2008)

you think amtrak is high let me asj you this. if you live in Michigan and had to get to Chicago but all ther flights for that day were 300 400 dollars. do you fly or take amtrak for around $70 round trip coach or 100 for business class round trip for a same day return.


----------



## Loui1 (Jun 17, 2008)

KISS_ALIVE said:


> you think amtrak is high let me asj you this. if you live in Michigan and had to get to Chicago but all ther flights for that day were 300 400 dollars. do you fly or take amtrak for around $70 round trip coach or 100 for business class round trip for a same day return.




It depends how much time is of value to you.

Unfortunately, I dont think a cult following will bring back the system.....a minority of people paying for tickets now will only put money in some CEO's pocket. It needs to be driven by the market or government.

Los Angeles to Chicago.... man, I cant imagine taking spending 48 hours in a sleeper.


----------



## Steven B (Jun 17, 2008)

Loui1 said:


> It depends how much time is of value to you.


I view time spent on a train as productive time -- time to relax (which is important), time to catch up on reading, and time to get work done.



Loui1 said:


> Unfortunately, I dont think a cult following will bring back the system.....a minority of people paying for tickets now will only put money in some CEO's pocket. It needs to be driven by the market or government.


The vast majority of Amtrak riders are not part of a "cult following." For many people, Amtrak is the most convenient, practical, or affordable way of traveling. That is especially true for people who can't fly or don't live near an airport. And in the Northeast Corridor, Amtrak is usually faster than flying if you include travel time to/from airports.



Loui1 said:


> Los Angeles to Chicago.... man, I cant imagine taking spending 48 hours in a sleeper.


That's nothin'. Last year I went from Wilmington, Delaware to Seattle, Washington and back (three full days and nights each way) for a business meeting. Then, two days after I got back from that trip, I took an overnight train trip down to Florida for a week-long vacation. So I ended up spending 8 full days onboard Amtrak trains that month, and I enjoyed every minute of it.


----------



## frj1983 (Jun 17, 2008)

Loui1 said:


> KISS_ALIVE said:
> 
> 
> > you think amtrak is high let me asj you this. if you live in Michigan and had to get to Chicago but all ther flights for that day were 300 400 dollars. do you fly or take amtrak for around $70 round trip coach or 100 for business class round trip for a same day return.
> ...


Respectfully Lou1,

Methinks you miss the points being made here. I live out in Aurora and work everyday in Chicago. I take Metra into Chicago...using your logic, one would ask "why in the world would I take Metra (and be stuck inside a passenger car for an hour) when I could jump in my car and quickly drive to Chicago?" Ah the hidden costs Lou the hidden costs: gas prices that go up (and have been for some time) and then to pay the exorbitant prices to park (which have also gone up) and the wear and tear on the vehicle. On Metra I can read, nap, and talk to others...not something I can do in my car, although I've seen some drivers trying such things.

If time is valued as ONLY getting there FAST, FAST, FAST then you've missed the whole point of traveling. Since you've just gotten out of school, a lesson from a teacher I once had who said about travel: "getting there and how you arrive is more important than the destination itself!" If speed is the most important point to you, then take the plane...but admit it, you wouldn't have come to this forum and wasted your time here if you weren't somewhat intrigued by the possibility of Amtrak travel? Right?

We're just trying to get you to think about things in a different way...speed IS NOT everything!!

Besides, I'm becoming more and more convinced that cheap airline tickets will soon be vanishing, yes, FAST!


----------



## Loui1 (Jun 17, 2008)

frj1983 said:


> Loui1 said:
> 
> 
> > KISS_ALIVE said:
> ...


Sure, believe me I love the idea of trains and hope they eventually flourish again. I appreciate the replies, as I came here hoping I'd find some reasoning to walk out my door, walk a block, and hop on the train...there is convenience value to that..... but it's just silly that it takes 21 hours longer to get to my destination than plane travel and cost as much if not more.

COMPLETELY different from a short commute because you gain the added benefit of avoiding the major traffic problems during rush hour (Im speaking as a past Metra rider from Schaumburg to Union Station)


----------



## WhoozOn1st (Jun 17, 2008)

Loui1 said:


> Sure, believe me I love the idea of trains and hope they eventually flourish again.


Dude, take a serious look around. Railroads, and rail transit, are clearly entering a new Golden Age, and the evidence is everywhere if you care to really look. You might start with gasoline prices, the airlines, and urban congestion, and finish with trucking rates. Rail is flourishing right under your nose.


----------



## Walt (Jun 17, 2008)

WhoozOn1st999 said:


> Dude, take a serious look around. Railroads, and rail transit, are clearly entering a new Golden Age, and the evidence is everywhere if you care to really look. You might start with gasoline prices, the airlines, and urban congestion, and finish with trucking rates. Rail is flourishing right under your nose.


While there might be a brief rebirth, I think we are well past the point of no return. Rail transit, if it grows, will quickly crumble because its infrastructure is already crumbling.

I recently took the Vermonter to, well, Vermont. The fact that the train had to lumber along at a walking pace, about 5 MPH, demonstrates oh too clearly to me, just how bad the rail infrastructure has deteriorated. And, sorry, but I don't think that is the single exception, but rather, part of the leading pack of what rail transit will quickly become. Amtrak (even with CSX) has been repairing and updating track at a pace well short of the speed at which it is all falling apart. That gap has grown too large for anyone to ever close it.

I did look around, and what I see, brings tears to my eyes.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jun 17, 2008)

Walt said:


> While there might be a brief rebirth, I think we are well past the point of no return. Rail transit, if it grows, will quickly crumble because its infrastructure is already crumbling.
> I recently took the Vermonter to, well, Vermont. The fact that the train had to lumber along at a walking pace, about 5 MPH, demonstrates oh too clearly to me, just how bad the rail infrastructure has deteriorated. And, sorry, but I don't think that is the single exception, but rather, part of the leading pack of what rail transit will quickly become. Amtrak (even with CSX) has been repairing and updating track at a pace well short of the speed at which it is all falling apart. That gap has grown too large for anyone to ever close it.


The highways are crumbling, too. In the Eisenhower era, the US built an awful lot of bridges that were expected to last 40-50 years. We're probably falling behind on maintaining / replacing them.

And if you look at which Amtrak routes are unsignaled, the northern part of the Vermonter run is one of the few, so I think it is perfectly reasonable to regard that route as an exceptionally unloved route.

NECR owns those Vermonter tracks, not CSX.


----------



## p&sr (Jun 17, 2008)

Loui1 said:


> Los Angeles to Chicago.... man, I cant imagine taking spending 48 hours in a sleeper.


I did that run in Coach last week. Very pleasant, very restful.

Besides, you aren't supposed to just STAY in the Sleeper. Get up and walk around, visit the Lounge Car and meet people, enjoy your meals in the Diner.



Loui1 said:


> I appreciate the replies, as I came here hoping I'd find some reasoning to walk out my door, walk a block, and hop on the train...there is convenience value to that..... but it's just silly that it takes 21 hours longer to get to my destination than plane travel and cost as much if not more.


What you ought to do is find a trip you can take from your home station that is longer than a regular business commute, but that lets you make a round-trip in one day, or with a single overnight at your destination. Take the Ride, and Then Decide!


----------



## Gingee (Jun 17, 2008)

A train ride is totally different from a Metra ride. I have taken the Metra from Crystal Lake to downtown Chicago. I think it is fun and a lot faster (so it seems) than Amtrak.

We are planning on driving to the Metra,(Crystal Lake) Amtrak, taking taxis in NYC, taking a cruise and who knows what next month. So we are taking all kinds of transportation. We don't like in the Chicago area - more like three hours from it.

The train rides are bumpier than the Metra (that's for sure) but it is peaceful.

We have gone coach, roommette and family bedroom. Granted family bedroom was better, they all have their advantages depending on how long you are on the train.

The first time we took a train (to NYC) we took the Cardinal. I wondered if there were many people on them. Man was I surprised. Lots of people including families. Sometimes you can get free fares also with children. Do you ever get that on a plane?

Just a few thoughts.


----------



## blueman271 (Jun 17, 2008)

I take the train not only because i find it peaceful and relaxing but also because i am scared of flying (which makes no sense whatsoever because i spend the majority of my time in a steel tube hundreds of feet beneath the surface of the ocean). While flying may be statistically safer, it always seems that even in the worst train accidents the majority of the people survive, whereas in the worst airline accidents the majority of the people do not.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jun 17, 2008)

Loui1 said:


> It depends how much time is of value to you.


Loui1, my time is the second most valuable thing to me in the whole wide world, my fiancé being the first. I spent the first 20 or so years of my life being resentful, upset, lonely, and darn near got myself killed more times than I care to think of. I am awfully, painfully, horribly aware of the fact that at least more than a quarter of my life has passed by now. I am very careful about how I spend my time. Each moment of it is dearly precious.

Because of this, I refuse to fly. Not because I'm scared of planes. I'm not. I'd fly if there was a compelling need other than someone wanting me somewhere at their convenience more than mine. No, I refuse to fly because I can't think of a less pleasant experience. Considering economics, I can't think of less satisfaction for a dollar spent.

Think about it. You spend a considerable amount of money to fly. For this money, you stressfully race to the airport, get herded through an undignified "security" check that accomplishes very little, and race through a dingy, cold building to sit in a waiting area. Then you get to get in a long, rude line to board this small, smelly, noisy tin can.

Within this tin can, you can sit into a seat barely big enough for your tuchus, crushed against several other people. You are forced to listen to a pointless safety announcement- I doubt it has saved a single life. Then you can wait for your plane to take off, and when it does you get to enjoy the feeling of your ears screaming in pain. Then you may or may not get an astonishingly small bag of snack and a teeny can of soda from a plastic woman with a plastic smile who never even notices you. Then you can get more pain as the plane lands. I don't know about you, but it would take me a day to recover from this.

Me? I amble my way to my local commuter railroad road stop, get to the station a few hours early but only because I enjoy train stations, and sit in a first class lounge with free food and a usually friendly attendant- personally friendly. Then I board a train, am greeted by an often friendly and warm attendant, and some remember my face, even after a few years of not seeing them.

I settle into a comfortable room with my stuff. I go and eat real, delicious, and included meals, with other people with which I have a genuine, friendly conversation. I go to a lounge and enjoy the world going by. I drink some nice booze and talk to some nice people. I go to sleep in a comfortable bed. I wake up well rested, and eat a good breakfast. I arrive where I am going happy, refreshed, and comfortable. With NO stress. If I'm connecting and something goes wrong, I know Amtrak will take care of it. As they always have.

Because Amtrak is an anachronism that, more often then not, does the right thing the best that they can.

I have now enjoyed 20 hours of my life going from New York to Chicago rather than hating 6 of them.



Loui1 said:


> Los Angeles to Chicago.... man, I cant imagine taking spending 48 hours in a sleeper.


Man, try it. Just once, give it a shot. You'll go no other way.


----------



## gswager (Jun 18, 2008)

If time is important, not very, I fly out and ride train home, as long as you're located in the same area where train station and airport is, such as ABQ. If you have good public transportation, that's good.

Do I get really tired, such as "post-vacation" syndrome, after returning trip on train? NO! On airplanes, it takes me about 2 days to recover due to stress.


----------



## Rail Freak (Jun 18, 2008)

Loui1 said:


> KISS_ALIVE said:
> 
> 
> > you think amtrak is high let me asj you this. if you live in Michigan and had to get to Chicago but all ther flights for that day were 300 400 dollars. do you fly or take amtrak for around $70 round trip coach or 100 for business class round trip for a same day return.
> ...


:angry: :unsure: :huh:  :lol: 

OH NO UNCLE BILL, 11 DAYS, LOL LOL LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## transit54 (Jun 18, 2008)

I take trains for a few different reasons. Most of my trips are along what's considered corridor service, but they are also 6-10 hour trips, so they take up a substantial part of my day.

1) I can be productive on a train. I can get online via my laptop and blackberry and I have a 120v outlet to plug into. In most airports finding power outlets can be an issue (this is becoming less of a problem now, but it depends where you are). I can also sleep easily, read, relax, or be on the phone (but I try and keep my conversations short and quiet as I can't stand people who loudly yap on their phones the entire trip). I can do none of these things, except read, on a plane. I absolutely can't do any of these things when I'm driving - and I hate driving more than an hour or so anywhere - I just find it mind numbing.

2) I've come to hate commercial aviation. I currently work part time in the aviation industry, at least for a few more weeks (I'm making a transition to a career in public transit at the moment). The amount of delays and unreliability of air travel (especially into the New York area, where I'm usually headed) is absolutely unreal. I've just come to hate last minute delays, cramped seats, standing in lines and waiting for bags. That doesn't mean I hate flying - I'm actually working on getting my private pilot's license at the moment - I've just gotten fed up the commercial air travel and try and avoid it when I can.

3) Trains, if not always on time, are generally much more consistent than planes. Sort of goes with the above. Amtrak doesn't have the best OTP rating, but they are pretty consistent. I can get a general idea of the time that I'll arrive on a train, usually within about an hour. If a plane I'm on takes a delay, it could be 20 minutes or five hours - I really have no idea. Before I start off my travel, I really can't get a good idea of when I'm going to arrive, except when I hope that everything is running on time (i.e. the weather is good).

4) Train travel is more environmentally friendly. To me, that's an important point, though I realize it isn't for everyone. I also view it as a long-term, sustainable means of transportation that isn't as dependent on a single source of fuel or incredibly imperiled when the price of fuel rises, unlike airplanes.

5) Trains give you an opportunity to get up, walk around, socialize with those around you and enjoy the scenery. Those are things that planes really don't offer.

6) On overnight trains, the ability to have a sleeper allows me to have a full night's rest while else getting somewhere. This is less of a factor when the trip is longer than say, 12-15 hours, but for certain city pairs I can board, potentially enjoy a meal, go to sleep, wake up, shower, enjoy another meal and then arrive in my final destination.

7) Walk up train fare is much, much less than walk up airfare. By hundreds of dollars. One way walk up rail fare, ESX->NYP is about $55 - on my carrier of choice, its $249 for BTV->JFK. When I can plan way in advance, airfare becomes competitive, but when I need to get somewhere three days from now, its a lot cheaper to take the train.

8) In most cases, Amtrak gets me exactly where I'm trying to go. When I go to southern CT (where I grew up) to see family and friends, I could fly to New York, but then it takes me about 2.5 hours to get out of the city and where I need to be. Amtrak drops me off just ten miles from where I'm headed.


----------



## D.P. Roberts (Jun 20, 2008)

If I just want to get from Point A to Point B as quickly as possible, I'll fly. I hate flying. Otherwise, I'll take a train. For all leisure travel, I think a train or car is necessary. I've taken a few trips overseas - via planes, of course - and it really bothered me. I'm put in an aluminum tube, shaken for a dozen hours, and thrown off the tube, to be told I'm looking at Big Ben, Mauna Loa, or some other site far from my home. For all I know, they dropped me off in Iceland, Timbuktu, or right back where I started from. Frankly, when I fly it takes me several days (if ever) to even feel like I'm really THERE. For me, it defeats the point of getting there quickly.

When traveling by train or car, you actually get the feeling that you're traveling somewhere. It may take longer, but it makes the whole experience more worthwhile - not just the train portion, but the whole trip.


----------



## jackal (Jun 20, 2008)

D.P. Roberts said:


> If I just want to get from Point A to Point B as quickly as possible, I'll fly. I hate flying. Otherwise, I'll take a train. For all leisure travel, I think a train or car is necessary. I've taken a few trips overseas - via planes, of course - and it really bothered me. I'm put in an aluminum tube, shaken for a dozen hours, and thrown off the tube, to be told I'm looking at Big Ben, Mauna Loa, or some other site far from my home. For all I know, they dropped me off in Iceland, Timbuktu, or right back where I started from. Frankly, when I fly it takes me several days (if ever) to even feel like I'm really THERE. For me, it defeats the point of getting there quickly.
> When traveling by train or car, you actually get the feeling that you're traveling somewhere. It may take longer, but it makes the whole experience more worthwhile - not just the train portion, but the whole trip.


I don't have the same _negative_ feeling toward flying that you and a few other people around here talk about (I actually like it...especially now that I have status, sit in first class, and get waited on hand and foot with unlimited free booze...oops, did I say that out loud? :lol: ), but I definitely agree with your statement that it takes several days to really _feel_ like I'm "there." There is something cool about knowing that 12 hours (and three connections) earlier I was 6,000 miles away from where I was, but once that wears off, it's almost a surreal feeling that makes it hard to really appreciate where you are--like it's fake or that you're in some holodeck or Disney animatronic scene. Traveling on the ground really makes you understand that you are FAR from home!


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jun 20, 2008)

jackal said:


> I don't have the same _negative_ feeling toward flying that you and a few other people around here talk about (I actually like it...especially now that I have status, sit in first class, and get waited on hand and foot with unlimited free booze...oops, did I say that out loud? :lol: ), but I definitely agree with your statement that it takes several days to really _feel_ like I'm "there." There is something cool about knowing that 12 hours (and three connections) earlier I was 6,000 miles away from where I was, but once that wears off, it's almost a surreal feeling that makes it hard to really appreciate where you are--like it's fake or that you're in some holodeck or Disney animatronic scene. Traveling on the ground really makes you understand that you are FAR from home!


My experiences are almost opposite. If I take an airplane or drive, I know that I've traveled a great distance, and that all completely makes sense. If I fall asleep somewhere in upstate New York and wake up in northern Indiana, there's something kind of surreal about that. Then again, I've done two round trips by combinations of automobile and Greyhound between Boston and Indiana, and in my childhood experienced an automobile trip from Connecticut to California, and I've made numerous plane trips, and only one round trip in a sleeping car, so familiarity with the mode of travel might be a factor.

But Amtrak is also the only mode of transportation where I have gotten a good night's sleep while traveling.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jun 20, 2008)

blueman271 said:


> I take the train not only because i find it peaceful and relaxing but also because i am scared of flying (which makes no sense whatsoever because i spend the majority of my time in a steel tube hundreds of feet beneath the surface of the ocean). While flying may be statistically safer, it always seems that even in the worst train accidents the majority of the people survive, whereas in the worst airline accidents the majority of the people do not.


I think submarine hulls are probably also a little bit more rugged than airframes, and/or that the lower speeds of submarines mean that collisions do not involve forces nearly as large.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jun 21, 2008)

Yeah, but given the forces involved, I think any notable impact would cause a leak, and any leak would mean everyone is dead.


----------



## micmac99 (Jun 23, 2008)

WhoozOn1st999 said:


> Loui1 said:
> 
> 
> > Sure, believe me I love the idea of trains and hope they eventually flourish again.
> ...


I should hope rail is making a comeback. I am an Amtrak fan going back to my first California Zephyr trip from Oakland to Chicago in 1984. Found out in Denver that Vanessa Williams was dethroned as Miss America. Man, did I have a crush on her at the age of 14!!! 

I stated on another thread that I will be taking my first Amtrak trip since almost right before 9/11 next week (the Texas Eagle). It will be so good to set foot on a mighty Superliner again. It has been too long. I have been on Amfleets, too, in the Bay Area (early '90s on a San Joaquin) and in Atlanta.

I now live in Phoenix, Arizona - a market that Amtrak had to abandon a few years ago because Union Pacific (I think) decommissioned the main line through Phoenix or something like that and Amtrak didn't have the money to purchase the line outright. I have to take Greyhound to Tucson to pick up the Texas Eagle (I have no way to get to Maricopa and Tucson's more interesting anyway). In the years since growing up in the Bay Area, the state of California has done a tremendous job with its Amtrak California system. Almost overnight an already halfway decent level of Amtrak service became a national model. I wish Arizona would have the sense to do the same, at least from Phoenix - Tucson.

Commercial aviation has always gotten a sweetheart deal from the government at the expense of Amtrak. Amtrak has for too long been the ugly stepsister of American transportation. 9/11 showed us, and now $4/gallon gas is showing us, that we MUST have a fully functioning nationwide passenger rail system. People need choices when they travel, and all of the above responses clearly prove that.


----------



## micmac99 (Jun 23, 2008)

jackal said:


> D.P. Roberts said:
> 
> 
> > If I just want to get from Point A to Point B as quickly as possible, I'll fly. I hate flying. Otherwise, I'll take a train. For all leisure travel, I think a train or car is necessary. I've taken a few trips overseas - via planes, of course - and it really bothered me. I'm put in an aluminum tube, shaken for a dozen hours, and thrown off the tube, to be told I'm looking at Big Ben, Mauna Loa, or some other site far from my home. For all I know, they dropped me off in Iceland, Timbuktu, or right back where I started from. Frankly, when I fly it takes me several days (if ever) to even feel like I'm really THERE. For me, it defeats the point of getting there quickly.
> ...


I used to fly a LOT in college after I transferred from UC Davis to the University of Arizona. Even with the shuttle van from Tucson to Sky Harbor Airport in Phoenix, and even with a stop in Las Vegas, it still felt like I was getting back to Oakland very, very fast. I don't think at the time (around '92 or so) it was practical to do Amtrak from Tucson to Oakland because of the scheduling and the routing through Los Angeles Union Station (might be a lot easier now under Amtrak California) so I took Greyhound. It was NICE to actually see how long it REALLY took and how far I was from home.

BTW, last time I flew was (I think) Thanksgiving 2000 from Atlanta to Phoenix (I was living in Atlanta and my son and ex were in Tucson at the time). Have not been near a commercial airliner since for various reasons and not so sure in the post 9/11 world I'm chomping at the bit to go back.


----------



## blueman271 (Jun 23, 2008)

> Yeah, but given the forces involved, I think any notable impact would cause a leak, and any leak would mean everyone is dead


Actually leaks are not that bad, flooding is the greatest danger to the ship. In Sub School we are taught that we will find leaks, but flooding will find us.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jun 24, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Yeah, but given the forces involved, I think any notable impact would cause a leak, and any leak would mean everyone is dead.


I don't think there has been any accident involving a US Navy submarine in your lifetime where everyone on the submarine died. The only US nuclear submarines that have been lost ever are the Thresher and the Scorpion, and neither of those seems to have involved a collision with anything else.

There have been cases where submarines have collided with things and people have generally survived. (Which maybe is parallel to how there have been times when there have been passengers on Amtrak trains that have collided with automobiles, and those train passengers have sometimes even been known to survive the experience.)

The US's diesel electric submarine fleet in World War II is a pretty different story in terms of overall survival rate, though.

You also have to understand how thick and heavy the steel hull is. I may be misremembering the dimensions, but I think it's about two inches thick. A 2" x 2" x 1" or so chuck of submarine pressure hull is surprisingly heavy for its size relative to anything else I can ever remember handling of the same volume. I don't think you need anywhere near that thickness to meet FRA specs.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jun 24, 2008)

What I know is more about submersibles than submarines. I also know something about water pressure because I used to saturation dive. I was just figuring that if the impact even slightly compromises the integrity of the hull, the sub will be 1/5th its original size very quickly.


----------



## jobtraklite (Jun 24, 2008)

This obviously doesn't apply system wide, but on my train, the Illinois Zephry, the biggest demographic is Cub fans. The train gets you to Chicago in time for a day game; and the game is over in time for the 5:55PM return.

Even on a weekday in May, the train was full of Cubs fans.


----------



## wayman (Jun 24, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, but given the forces involved, I think any notable impact would cause a leak, and any leak would mean everyone is dead.
> ...


The most recent directly relevant example is the USS San Francisco which hit a seamount head-on at 33 knots (38 mph) in 2005. As seen in Star Trek, the main thing that happens is that anything not tied down goes flying forward in the cabin at high speed and people get thrown out of their chairs pretty violently. Sailors were injured, some badly, and one died, but nobody drowned and the sub was, by and large, structurally fine. Needs hull repairs up front, of course, but she'll sail again.


----------



## PaulLev (Jun 24, 2008)

I'm a college professor, author, etc. and I ride Amtrak all the time in the Northeast corridor, and any chance I get, elsewhere. I prefer it to plane travel - but of course do take planes overseas, and to California from New York - and also to driving (which I also like, but not as much as trains).


----------



## GG-1 (Jun 24, 2008)

Aloha

To go almost anywhere i need to fly, the big clue I am somewhare else is the Air, There is nothligh like clear air and the sent of flowers, to lift spirits,


----------



## blueman271 (Jun 24, 2008)

wayman said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> > Green Maned Lion said:
> ...


While this is off topic, and I don't mean to sound like a know-it-all, the San Fran was not very structurally sound. She lost her ability to blow her forward MBT's, her ability to use any systems requiring air until she recharged her aft air banks, and her barrier to sea pressure was a very flimsy door leading to the sonar dome access tunnel. Furthermore, after the collision she was slowed to 2 knots, and IMHO if she had been any deeper than the 525 ft she was at she would have been lost. 688 class submarines surface by driving the boat to the surface using a combination of planes and speed. At 525 feet only a percentage of the water in the ballast tanks can be blown out due to sea pressure, and it is my humble opinion that if she had even been only 100 feet deeper she would not have been able to achieve positive bouyancy and surface (because of her lack of speed and the fact that only the aft MBT's could be blown). I have no scientific basis or evidence for any of my conclussions, but i do work on these systems every day and know then fairly well.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jun 24, 2008)

So you're saying we came close to losing that boat?


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jun 25, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> What I know is more about submersibles than submarines. I also know something about water pressure because I used to saturation dive. I was just figuring that if the impact even slightly compromises the integrity of the hull, the sub will be 1/5th its original size very quickly.


There are some watertight doors in the typical submarine. (Indeed, some apparently believe that the Scorpion was lost when watertight doors were closed during battery charging; the procedures that had been developed for charging batteries in WWII just so happened to not have to worry much about ventilating the batteries, because you typically were providing ventilation for the diesel engines at the same time, since on a WWII sub the only way to charge the batteries was to run the diesel. On a nuclear sub, closing the watertight doors while submerged and charging the batteries apparently will allow dangerous hydrogen buildups.)

The sea pressure also keeps increasing as you go deeper. I suspect this means that if you are not near the maximum depth the hull can withstand, that margin can be applied as a reserve for surviving collisions below a certain speed.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jun 25, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > What I know is more about submersibles than submarines. I also know something about water pressure because I used to saturation dive. I was just figuring that if the impact even slightly compromises the integrity of the hull, the sub will be 1/5th its original size very quickly.
> ...


I was applying the concept that you can smash an egg from one front, but you can't crush it with equal pressure to all sides. But you can, obviously, if the shell is cracked.


----------



## frj1983 (Jun 25, 2008)

How exactly did we get from "What type of People Ride Amtrak?" to "Sub Collisions?" and how exactly can we get back to the topic? :blink:

Short people, tall people, adults, kids, people of all stripes ride Amtrak and their reasons for riding? Well, I like to ask them...and I find as many different reasons as people!


----------



## PaulLev (Jun 25, 2008)

frj1983 said:


> How exactly did we get from "What type of People Ride Amtrak?" to "Sub Collisions?" and how exactly can we get back to the topic? :blink:
> Short people, tall people, adults, kids, people of all stripes ride Amtrak and their reasons for riding? Well, I like to ask them...and I find as many different reasons as people!


Ok, I'll add that I always take Amtrak in the Northeast corridor for business - my book signings, science fiction conventions, academic conferences - to get to Boston, Phila, Baltimore, and Washington (I'm in NYC). I do this for convenience and pleasure.


----------



## Guest (Jun 26, 2008)

A photographer with Reuters put these 50 pix out there:

http://www.reuters.com/news/pictures/slide...yName=News#a=50

These look like a fair sampling of who rides Amtrak and the faces look a lot happier than most you see on an airplane. If the link evaporates it was titled, "Riding the Rails" with Joshua somebody or other the photographer.


----------



## PaulLev (Jun 26, 2008)

Guest said:


> A photographer with Reuters put these 50 pix out there:
> http://www.reuters.com/news/pictures/slide...yName=News#a=50
> 
> These look like a fair sampling of who rides Amtrak and the faces look a lot happier than most you see on an airplane. If the link evaporates it was titled, "Riding the Rails" with Joshua somebody or other the photographer.


Joshua Lott is the photographer.

Great shots - about 20 - of life on the Lake Shore Limited (NYP up the Hudson River and then across to CHI).


----------



## wayman (Jun 26, 2008)

Add another answer to the "what type of people ride Amtrak" question: an indecisive person who didn't get around to making any actual birthday plans with anyone (besides, it's Thursday, might as well wait for the weekend), and realized that morning that his birthday wish--especially since it won't be so easy in Las Vegas--was to ride Amtrak! (Well, to ride Amtrak and to stand in 30th St Station for a while just watching and listening to the split-flap departure board. He'll miss that too.)

So he took the trolley to 30th St, bought tickets to Ardmore and back, hopped on a Keystone with a couple canvas shopping bags, bought fresh rhubarb at the farmers' market and heavy whipping cream at the Trader Joe's, got some nice skyline photos on the way back to the city, and made a rhubarb parfait at home to celebrate.

And then made his 500th post to the AU forum! :lol:


----------



## GG-1 (Jun 26, 2008)

wayman said:


> Add another answer to the "what type of people ride Amtrak" question: an indecisive person who didn't get around to making any actual birthday plans
> And then made his 500th post to the AU forum! :lol:


Sounds like a good reason to me, heck, except for the plans part I am riding with friends on my next birthday.

Aloha


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jun 26, 2008)

Even celebrities ride Amtrak.


----------



## GG-1 (Jun 27, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Even celebrities ride Amtrak.


I hope you mean Us, we are celebrities

Aloha


----------



## jebb (Jul 7, 2008)

I'm a young, married, home-owning grad student, and I still want to travel with what little money I have left over  . I will be traveling by train for the first time long-distance next month and the main reason is that it's going to give me some hopefully relaxing time to get away, visit a friend, an aunt, and see a bit of the country for a LOT LESS than the cost of a flight to the same destination.


----------



## PetalumaLoco (Jul 7, 2008)

Trains are magic. I was born in '49 and raised next to SP tracks and learned to fall asleep to passing freights. Never rode any except tourist short excursion runs like the Skunk Train until 1999 when the family did a self guided rail tour of France, Germany and Italy. I've always wanted to do a US x-country rail trip, and I no longer have a reason not to. I hate air travel. Airliners suck. I took this B-25 bomber ride a month ago and and found out that I love flyiing. But air travel is like others said impersonal, and in some instances degrading. My wife, with a titanium hip, does not appreciate getting patted down in airport security, she's a 62 yr old grandmother for crysake. I'm not getting any younger. I'm a recent cancer survivor, I guess you might say I have a bucket list of things to do. I'm going to ride from the west coast to the east coast and back, and dammit I'm going to enjoy myself.


----------

