# Why do Amtrak trains have to be so slow?



## David

It baffles me as to why there is not a more adequate system of rail transportation in the U.S. that is both faster and more conveinant. For a hypothetical situation, I was wondering how long it would take to ride the Amtrak train from where I live in Austin, TX to Los Angeles, CA. It takes about 38 hours direct, which to me is rediculous. It takes about 20 hours, almost half that time, to drive from Austin to Los Angeles, a distance of about 1400 miles. Doing the math, the Amtrak train travels at about 35 miles per hour. I understand that the train makes stops and that time is factored in. Also, I understand that Amtrak has to use the freight lines, which also contribute to the added time. What I don't understand is why there can't be more funding for Amtrak to fix all of this. For one, there should be an express train for every Amtrak line. Such an express line for the Texas Eagle, which travels from Chicago to Los Angeles, should stop only in Chicago, St. Louis, Little Rock, Dallas, Austin or San Antonio, El Paso, Tuscon, and Los Angeles. Second, even if the Amtrak traveled at half the speed of a Japanese bullet train which would be 90 mph, there should be no reason why this train can't rocket across a landscape as barren as the American Southwest. Stopping for as long as an hour in each city between Austin to Los Angeles would only take about two hours. Given the train travels at 90 mph, the total trip time should take only about 18 hours, or slightly less than the time it would take to drive. If the systematics of this hypothetical situation could be applied all over the country with Amtrak I feel that more people would be inclined to use rail travel and not drive. There could arise the need for even more trains and train routes that aren't so dependent on freight lines. I don't understand why more can't be done, and I was hoping somebody in the transportation industry could provide me with a little more insight.


----------



## AmtrakBlue

$$$$$$$$$$$


----------



## SarahZ

David said:


> What I don't understand is why there can't be more funding for Amtrak to fix all of this.


You and everyone else on this forum. Write to your representatives, join NARP, and spread the word. Many of my friends and family members have expressed a desire to travel by train thanks to all of my stories, photos, and videos. A few of them completed their first Amtrak journeys this year. The more people riding, the more demand it creates, and the more popularity Amtrak will gain. Hopefully, someday, Congress will see it the same way.


----------



## saxman

The top speed for the Texas Eagle is 79 mph. And I disagree that the LD trains should have express trains. In the major corridors, such as DFW to Austin, yes, but it wouldn't really work for the vast open areas of the west. Most of those small towns really rely on rail service and even though fewer people use those stops, they still provide significant revenue to Amtrak. And

And 20 hours from Austin to LA is also without stopping for breaks, unless you're driving with 2 people and drive throughout the night. So I'd say with a hotel stay it'll be more like 25 to 30 hours for driving.

And lastly, you're preaching to the choir about better Amtrak funding. Amtrak has never had a meaningful funding mechanism like highways and the aviation system have enjoyed for decades. Each Amtrak has to request a grant from Congress and each year the amount it receives is different. It makes it hard to run a business when you don't know how much money you're going to have in a year. I'm hoping one day, we'll get a real comprehensive national passenger rail plan with a way to fund it as well. Perhaps a national public transportation bill or a surface transportation bill that includes all forms of transport. So pretty much, Amtrak has a been a political punching bag since it began in 1971, and that's why we have what we have today.

Read these forums, and you'll learn a lot about Amtrak. Also if you are interested in helping get better rail, join a local group for passenger rail. We have several Texans in this forum as well. Also look into joining the National Association of Railroad Passenger at www.narprail.org or you can look at the Texas Association of Railroad Passengers as well.

Hope this answers some of your questions!

sax


----------



## darien-l

Most tracks that Amtrak travels on are limited to a top speed of 79 mph for passenger trains. Also, there's padding built into the schedule to make up for delays caused by freight traffic. The only real solution to both of these problems is to build dedicated high-speed lines for passenger trains, which won't happen anytime soon for the majority of the Amtrak network. I suppose some time can be shaved by reducing the time spent at major stops by streamlining refueling/servicing operations, but the improvement won't be dramatic. Personally, I don't think long-distance Amtrak trains are particularly "slow" compared to driving. In the example you gave, you probably won't drive 20 hours in one go, there will be an overnight stop somewhere, and the total time driving won't be that much less than taking a train. The real issue is that when you drive, you essentially waste two days in an uncomfortably small space, but on a train, you can read, work, watch movies, walk around, enjoy the scenery, interact with fellow passengers, etc. So I think that taking the train already compares very favorably to driving, and time is not that big an issue. If you really need to get there fast, you'd probably fly anyway.

To me, the bigger issue with Amtrak long-distance trains is frequency of service. We need to have more trains between major city pairs, particularly when the trip can be made overnight (8-14 hours). That "fall asleep in city A, wake up in city B" model is the biggest selling point of train travel for me.


----------



## Trogdor

You ask a very loaded question that has a lot of different answers.

These answers could take books to fully explain, and you'll run into many different opinions on why things are the way they are, and exactly how they should be different, but I'll try to answer them from a few different angles.

First, the proximate answer to your basic question of why it takes so long to go from Austin, TX, to Los Angeles, is because you start out on the Texas Eagle, which travels to San Antonio and has scheduled recovery time of an hour or so (to account for delays en route from Chicago, which can be unpredictable due to the variability of freight traffic), followed by a five-hour layover in San Antonio where through cars from the Texas Eagle are attached to the back of the Sunset Limited, that is coming from New Orleans. This, right off the bat, adds six hours to your scheduled trip.

Next, due to the same variable freight traffic (and single-track nature of the railroad, though that is being addressed over time as Union Pacific invests in double-tracking the route), the Sunset Limited has up to four hours of recovery time between San Antonio and Los Angeles. So, that makes for a combined total of 10 extra hours vs. moving continuously on a journey from Austin to Los Angeles.

Your next question is "why can't there be more funding to fix this?" Well, if you've watched the news regarding budget debates, I think you have your answer right there. If your question was more on the philosophical level of "why are we allowing ourselves as a nation to be in this position with respect to infrastructure and funding priorities," well, there's another book or two right there.

The question of speed limits on the railroad is the result of various federal regulations regarding track design and maintenance standards, as well as equipment requirements. Nationally, there is a maximum speed limit of 79 mph for any railroad not equipped with some sort of automatic train stop system (the actual rule is that speeds of 80 mph or above require this system, hence you can go up to 79 and not have it). Nowadays, the systems have to be even more advanced, with issues such as grade crossing timing and various other things coming into play. The cost of doing so is enormous, hence why it hasn't already been done in too many places by now.

The issue of express trains is a bit different. The simple economic reality is that there is very little justification for express trains except in time-sensitive corridors where there is lots of other service to pick up the local stops. The time you save by running your hypothetical Chicago-St. Louis-Little Rock-Dallas-Austin-El Paso-Tucson-Los Angeles train, even at upgraded (90-100 mph) speeds would be relatively little vs. the significant revenue you'd lose by skipping so many intermediate markets. Basically, someone who is in a hurry to get from Tucson to Los Angeles won't be taking the train, so you're not going to get more Tucson-Los Angeles riders by skipping the intermediate stops and offering a (for example) 7 hour trip, when they could fly it in an hour and a half. Meanwhile, the money you lose by not stopping at Maricopa (and, in an ideal world, that would be Phoenix instead), Yuma and Palm Springs, for example, would far outweigh whatever you might gain by skipping a few intermediate stops (and, for smaller stops, the time penalty for stopping is somewhere along the lines of 3-6 minutes per stop; depending on track speed through the area and also ridership at that stop).

Having more passenger trains that aren't on freight routes is a great ideal goal, but is not a practical option except in some of the denser corridors. Long-distance trains between the midwest and west coast will basically never have an entirely passenger-only right of way. There are too many vast empty expanses in between to justify running the frequent service that would justify dedicated right of way. Even if the right of way was free, track construction and maintenance would be too expensive for too little service. We face that right now on the Southwest Chief route (which is a more direct Chicago-Los Angeles train), where track through Colorado and New Mexico currently has no freight traffic. The host railroad, BNSF, wants to abandon that route, forcing the Chief to move to a more southerly route via northern Texas and Oklahoma, unless someone comes up with (I can't remember the exact figure, but I think it's something along the lines of) tens of millions of dollars per year to keep the line intact. And that's not even talking faster-than-79 mph service. There may be a reprieve for the route, if the states involved come up with the extra money (or lobby their congressiona delegation to find the money somewhere), but clearly it's hard on a grand scale to justify that kind of financial investment for such a small amount of service.

The bigger answer is that decades ago, we as a society and nation decided (consciously or not) that we were going to tilt the economics of transportation by putting metric-s***-tons of money into highways (and aviation), and essentially nothing into railroads. The results weren't surprising. Railroads (particularly passenger rail) struggled, and automobile travel became ingrained in the public mindset as a sort of default. In order to attempt to correct it, passenger rail has been attacked as being "subsidized" and representative of "government waste" by many, making it even more difficult to correct the imbalance in our transportation network.


----------



## Rail Freak

If I'm in a hurry, I take a plane! If I want to chill & see the countryside, I take Amtrak! Different strokes for different folks!!!!

Have Fun


----------



## TVRM610

Rail Freak said:


> If I'm in a hurry, I take a plane! If I want to chill & see the countryside, I take Amtrak! Different strokes for different folks!!!!
> 
> Have Fun


I disagree with this as a blanket statement... There are plenty of times when taking the train will get you there as fast as flying even on some long distance routes depending on a number of factors. Now if you are going NYC to LAX the plane will naturally get you there days before. But there are many routes that are more convenient by train.


----------



## TimePeace

This thread is showing some very thoughtful answers and I thank the original poster for asking the questions.

As suggested, join up, ride and enjoy it, and talk it up among friends and family - I personally believe a lot in "grassroots" campaigns, and most people I know, when I say I am going to California next month on the train, say "wait - you can do that???"


----------



## Nathanael

I have a thoughtful canned response for this sort of question -- but apparently so do Sorcha, saxman, darien-l, and especially Trogdor, who said almost everything I would have said!

I guess there's one more thing from the canned response to be said: the vast majority of passenger transportation isn't profitable, and many of the benefits accrue to people other than the travellers, so it generally requires government assistance (or direct government operation). Furthermore, it's practically impossible to assemble rights-of-way without government assistance. So the state of passenger transportation has been a question of government funding for most of history, dating back to at least the Roman roads -- and it still is.

Call your state and federal elected officials, watch what they do, and if you don't like it, elect different ones who will fund improved passenger service.


----------



## David

Thank you for your detailed response. I agree with all of your points. I understand the loss in revenue of skipping the intermediate markets; I would just hope that more local trains could accomodate that albeit on the same route, connecting people to the larger cities where they could hop on an express train. Also as you note, there are lot of other markets that need to be accomodated and it would be great if Amtrak didn't have to rely on the freight lines and have more routes. I know that train travel will never compare to air travel in terms of time, but making it comparable to car traffic would be great. I see the big picture, and you explained it well, why train travel is in the situation it is in compared to car travel. I can also see the equipment and mechanical issues; I just wonder if there is a way to increase that set 79 mph limit. I agree that not many people would take the train from Tuscon to Los Angeles, but if it could get you there in an hour (hypothetically) more people might use it. I know the ultimate issue is money; I just wish there was a way to fix it and make train travel something more people would want to use in this country.


----------



## Bill Haithcoat

One of the most devastating blows to train speed happened before Amtrak. That was when the interstate highway system was built, That gave a huge advantage to the car and also the long distance bus overnight.

It took a long time for the Interstate system to be built so I do not know the age range.

But believe this, before Amtrak there were many more trains than now and they varied a lot as to how fast they were. But the fastest ones were often the fastest things on wheels.

BTW the interstate highway system also ruined the business for a lot of small road side businesses.


----------



## Alexandria Nick

David said:


> make train travel something more people would want to use in this country.


When you get down to it, the real problem is unsolvable: the United States is huge. Air won long distance and people are willing to pay a lot because their time is valuable. Trains can't make up for the car's flexibility, which is its trade off for the time issue.

I also think the interstates are a bit overblown. Cars were already hammering the railroads decades before the interstates.


----------



## Rick

*The CEO of Amtrak, Joseph Boardman, has testified before Congress many times. In a recent testimony for funding purposes, he basically said that much of Amtrak's revenue is derived from travel between intermediate points. For instance, on the Texas Eagle, someone traveling beween Marshall and Temple, Texas has no other option except for driving. Some people don't want to drive or may not be capable. While a good idea, I do not see any hope of express trains over long distances, because they cannot compete with air travel. That is, unless, Amtrak acquires the right of way and upgrades to the Northeast corridor standards.*


----------



## darien-l

Trogdor said:


> Basically, someone who is in a hurry to get from Tucson to Los Angeles won't be taking the train





David said:


> I agree that not many people would take the train from Tuscon to Los Angeles


That's funny, I took the train to Los Angeles a lot when I lived in Tucson. Back then, it was an overnight run both ways, which was extremely convenient: sleep, shower, get dressed, have breakfast, and be ready to go early in the morning at your destination. *That* is the real strength of long-distance train travel: it combines lodging and transportation. No other mode of transportation can compete with this. I honestly don't understand why people are having such a difficult time grasping this concept.


----------



## Trogdor

darien-l said:


> Trogdor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Basically, someone who is in a hurry to get from Tucson to Los Angeles won't be taking the train
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that not many people would take the train from Tuscon to Los Angeles
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's funny, I took the train to Los Angeles a lot when I lived in Tucson. Back then, it was an overnight run both ways, which was extremely convenient: sleep, shower, get dressed, have breakfast, and be ready to go early in the morning at your destination. *That* is the real strength of long-distance train travel: it combines lodging and transportation. No other mode of transportation can compete with this. I honestly don't understand why people are having such a difficult time grasping this concept.
Click to expand...

I think you're the one who didn't grasp what I was saying. Nobody in a hurry would take the train from Tucson to LA. If you're leaving at night and don't have to be at your destination until the next morning, then you're not in a hurry.

Plus, my statement (which you took out of context) was in reference to whether a nonstop train would be effective due to its time savings over a train that makes all the stops. The answer, in this case, would still be no.


----------



## darien-l

I feel like we're speaking different languages. "Time" and "hurry" are relative concepts. There are certain things that humans need to do, like eat and sleep. These can be done while riding a train, but not while driving a car. Therefore, although a trip can be done in a car in fewer hours and minutes, it wastes more valuable, productive time.

For example, let's imagine that I live in Tucson and "in a hurry" for a morning meeting in Los Angeles. Let's further imagine that there's reliable overnight train service between the two cities. I could drive or fly the day before and stay in a hotel. In this case, the time spent driving or flying is wasteful, unproductive time. Moreover, the total time (driving or flying plus hotel) spent in getting to the meeting is longer than the train trip would have been, because the train combines these two things (travel & lodging).


----------



## v v

I live in France with the 200 mph trains. The few times that we use them they are almost always full, and their frequency has increased dramatically. I don't think any of this could have been contemplated without the French state backing, it's too big a project for a private company and needs national legislation.

I come from the UK where the national rail system was slpit up and privatised quite a while ago, it's chaotic and expensive now.

Checked out a fare yesterday to travel from 30 miles east of central London to Heathrow airport about 10 miles west of central London. 78 GBP (about $125 USD for 2 people if booked in advance), very poor value for money. For less than that I can get from LA to SF on the Starlight with reserved seats.

The French pay high taxes, but do get services to be proud of. Each country has it's own way.


----------



## amtrakwolverine

Congress and the GOP cannot get it into there iron thick skulls that they are the reason Amtrak is the way it is. Outdated equipment poor maintenance. They keep stripping Amtrak of more and more funding then complain how Amtrak goes no where etc. Give Amtrak the funding it has been denied for years and Amtrak will gladly {if management is smart enough) buy new equipment restore old routes increase frequency on other routes. Should tell those in the GOP lets see your annul income cut by 50% or more and try to maintain the same lifestyle you do now and even improve your lifestyle while living on less money. That's what they keep doing to Amtrak cause Americas government will always be anti-rail and it will never change.The roads and interstates get more funding each year then Amtrak has gotten in its 40+ year history combined.


----------



## TVRM610

To the OP Guest David... You should realize that the Sunset Limited is the slowest train for a number of reasons. Amtrak is working on getting more high speed tracks. It's a slow process but there are big time improvements. The following trains operate at speeds of over

79 mph when track conditions allow.

Chicago - St. Louis - up to 110 MPH

Michigain Services - up to 110 MPH

Philadelphia - Harrisburg - up to 110 MPH

California Surfliners - up to 90 MPH

Southwest Chief - up to 90 MPH

Lake Shore Limited - up to 100 MPH

and then there is the North East Corridor which has tracks up to 150 mph in a few sections for ACELA trains with other trains operating 100-125 depending on the age of equipment (Long distance trains operate with older baggage cars that limit the speed) from Washington DC to New York, to Boston.

I point this out because this is itself a big accomplishment considering the extremely low budget Amtrak is given. They really are trying to do their best with the budget they are given.


----------



## Trogdor

darien-l said:


> I feel like we're speaking different languages.


Perhaps. I'm using Merriam Webster's definition of hurry:



> to move or act with haste


When you have the option/luxury of being able to take a seven-hour trip, when other modes can be done in about two hours, then there may be plenty of reasons for going that route, but being "in a hurry" is not one of them.


----------



## Guest

David said:


> For one, there should be an express train for every Amtrak line. Such an express line for the Texas Eagle, which travels from Chicago to Los Angeles, should stop only in Chicago, St. Louis, Little Rock, Dallas, Austin or San Antonio, El Paso, Tuscon, and Los Angeles.


I would agree with you 100%, except that such a train would certainly be strictly forbidden to stop in Austin or San Antonio, or anywhere in Texas for that matter. No compromise on that (wow, I sound like a Republican :giggle: )

Now, let's continue the discussion on how much you will support, politically and financially, this particular purposed train?

The issue for any express train, HS or other, is that everyone wants it to stop for them, and then not stop for others to save time.


----------



## PaulM

darien-l said:


> Trogdor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Basically, someone who is in a hurry to get from Tucson to Los Angeles won't be taking the train
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that not many people would take the train from Tuscon to Los Angeles
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's funny, I took the train to Los Angeles a lot when I lived in Tucson. Back then, it was an overnight run both ways, which was extremely convenient: sleep, shower, get dressed, have breakfast, and be ready to go early in the morning at your destination. *That* is the real strength of long-distance train travel: it combines lodging and transportation. No other mode of transportation can compete with this. I honestly don't understand why people are having such a difficult time grasping this concept.
Click to expand...

I'd agree with you except that I'd also want supper and a night cap in the lounge.


----------



## NETrainfan

We need the express trains for commuters, but speeding up the LD trains doesn't seem necessary to us. Business commuters need the express trains (like the Acela on the NEC)- but it seems that most people traveling LD are taking the train because they prefer train travel to other modes-not because they are in a hurry.

Ridership is up, true? We think it would go way up if more people knew more about the LD trains and that an overnight coach seat is quite affordable.

We hope more funding for Amtrak will increase express trains for commuters and maintain and increase the number of LD trains.


----------



## jis

darien-l said:


> For example, let's imagine that I live in Tucson and "in a hurry" for a morning meeting in Los Angeles. Let's further imagine that there's reliable overnight train service between the two cities. I could drive or fly the day before and stay in a hotel. In this case, the time spent driving or flying is wasteful, unproductive time. Moreover, the total time (driving or flying plus hotel) spent in getting to the meeting is longer than the train trip would have been, because the train combines these two things (travel & lodging).


Each to their own taste. In general I would not choose lodging on a rocking and rolling thing if I can arrange it so that I get to my destination and get lodging on solid earth. The ideal for me is a two hour journey in the morning, meet all day, then a two hour journey back home. If a train fits that form, as it does in quite a bit of the NEC, then it is train, otherwise it is plane for me. And for distances further afield it usually is plane, though there always are variations that come into play depending on the situation..


----------



## tomfuller

I have traveled many thousands of miles on many of the Amtrak LD routes. I always travel in coach. Several of my trips have been on Rail Passes.

My first rail trip was on a North America Rail Pass which sadly no longer exists.

The latest train I was ever on was the ViaRail Canadian. I slept on the floor of the Winnipeg station waiting for the train which showed up 16 hours late.

In Western Ontario there was an early snowstorm which took down wires to the signals. When this happens all trains stop or slow to about 10 mph.

I saw trhe signals get snowed in in Southern Oregon so we had to proceed slowly from K-Falls to Chemult.

There are many other reasons why the train dispatchers give orders to the engineers to go slower than the posted speed limit.

I have on occasion had the GPS working when trains are slightly exceeding the speed limit.

I have been on at least 3 Amtrak trains that arrived at my station more than 30 minutes early. These are usually on overnight trips when there is no freight traffic.

I still advocate for an earlier Empire Builder between MSP and SPK. If you had the shorter all coach EB "light" that left MSP at the same time as the regular EB left Chicago, I believe it could become profitable or at least break even.

Having the EB "light" leave SPK about 7 PM instead of the current 1:30AM would lure more passengers with destinations from MSP west.


----------



## Nathanael

Overnight lodging in a sleeper compartment in a train is faster and more convenient than taking a long, unpleasant series of cattle-car plane flights with connections in cattle-pen airports, staggering off ill and sore, and sleeping for 8 hours before taking a long trip from the airport to downtown. The same is true for most people who can sleep comfortably on a train.

It is a very specific niche: on in the evening, off in the morning. Upstate NY to Chicago, for instance, fits the niche. The plane options almost all involve changing planes. The nonstops are extremely expensive -- actually costing more than sleeper compartments -- and are already more than 2 hours in the air alone. The options involving changing planes are still expensive (though often cheaper than train travel), but are miserable affairs lasting over 4 hours -- and mostly land you in O'Hare, an hour away from Chicago. You'll probably have to stay overnight in Chicago if you do that. The train starts to look extremely attractive.

Taking a "on in the evening, off in the morning" train IS what you do if you're in a hurry, if your alternative is a 4-6 hour air trip, changing planes somewhere, plus a trip from O'Hare to downtown Chicago, plus a hotel room in Chicago.

For some reason, people who talk about "long distance trains" frequently confuse two different sorts of "long-distance train travel". I think it is important to keep them distinct. The "on in the evening, off in the morning" niche is quite attractive to a lot of people, at least when you don't have downtown airports and direct flights. On the other hand, the "double overnight" itineraries like Chicago-LA are never going to be attractive to time-sensitive passengers. There's a reason Amtrak can (and does) charge *more* for a NY-Chicago sleeper than for a Chicago-LA sleeper, even though the latter runs twice as far and certainly costs more to operate.

LA-Tucson "on in the evening, off in the morning" would be quite successful because it fits the niche, though not as perfectly as upstate NY-Chicago (since Tucson-LA has several cheap direct flights and the LA airport is better located than O'Hare).


----------



## Trogdor

Convenience of airport location is dependent, of course, on where your ultimate destination is, but as one who has routinely flown out of both LAX and O'Hare, and traveled to/from downtown in both cities, I don't see how anyone could make the argument that Los Angeles's airport is "better located than O'Hare." Not to mention the convenience of the Blue Line, which is 45 minutes from downtown (regardless of how congested the highways are; unlike LAX, which has no good local transit option). Also, when traffic isn't too bad (depends on time of day and day of week), road-based transport from O'Hare to downtown can be quicker than that.

Of course, someone "in a hurry" to get from Buffalo to Chicago would take a Southwest nonstop to Midway airport (30 minutes to downtown by train).

Of course, those "in a hurry" are less likely to be concerned about the relative cost of a sleeper vs. a plane ticket (and those "in a hurry" aren't going to take the five-hour connecting itinerary anyway).

Not sure how this turned into such a debate, since the point I made a long time ago was that taking out stops on a long distance train to make the trip faster is rarely going to generate higher ridership due to the shortened schedule. If the Lake Shore Limited took 11 hours to travel from Rochester to Chicago, it wouldn't really sell significantly more tickets than the 11h45 schedule it has now. Likewise, a 10 hour Tucson-Los Angeles schedule wouldn't suddenly see an increase in ridership just because the schedule went to 9.5 hours.

The time-sensitive folks already have a much faster option.


----------



## Guest

The UK sleeper services are just as slow as long-distance Amtrak trains, at least according to the timetable. In some cases they are slower. London Euston to Glasgow Central is timetabled at 55 mph, Edinburgh 53 mph, Aberdeen 51 mph, Inverness 51 mph and Fort William 45 mph. The London Paddington to Penzance sleeper is timetabled at 38 mph, slower than the Cardinal. Part of the reason is the age of the rolling stock, part of the reason is avoiding the need to set off at 2 am and/or arrive at 4 am.

Having said that, the Chicago to New York and Washington services really need speeding up to achieve a maximum 12 hour journey time to New York and 10 hours to Washington. Even this is far from ideal (eastbound, it would mean an a 1900 departure for an 0800 arrival), and 9.5 hours to New York (dep 2030, arr 0700) and 8 hours to Washington (dep 2200, arr 0700) would be much more useful.


----------



## TimePeace

And if time is indeed the major, or only, consideration, then there is no tough decision: fly. If you can stand it.


----------



## chakk

Austin to Los Angeles on Interstate Highway 10 is 1,379 miles. Austin to Los Angeles via Amtrak is 1505 miles.


----------



## VentureForth

19 Hrs vs 35 Hrs. Let's add Greyhound which CAN'T make the trip in 19 hours. Even the Express books 34 hours. What's the point?


----------



## tricia

darien-l said:


> To me, the bigger issue with Amtrak long-distance trains is frequency of service. We need to have more trains between major city pairs, particularly when the trip can be made overnight (8-14 hours). That "fall asleep in city A, wake up in city B" model is the biggest selling point of train travel for me.


Me too, on that last point. As for the first, others on this forum have noted that running all or most of the LD lines twice a day, at roughly 12-hr intervals, would vastly improve Amtrak's usability for passengers at stations nearly everywhere.


----------



## tricia

darien-l said:


> 'Trogdor' said:
> 
> 
> 
> Basically, someone who is in a hurry to get from Tucson to Los Angeles won't be taking the train
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'David' said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that not many people would take the train from Tuscon to Los Angeles
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's funny, I took the train to Los Angeles a lot when I lived in Tucson. Back then, it was an overnight run both ways, which was extremely convenient: sleep, shower, get dressed, have breakfast, and be ready to go early in the morning at your destination. *That* is the real strength of long-distance train travel: it combines lodging and transportation. No other mode of transportation can compete with this. I honestly don't understand why people are having such a difficult time grasping this concept.
Click to expand...

Just took the train from LA to Tucson myself earlier this month--not sure how many of us left the train there (since it's also a smoke stop), but I for sure wasn't the only one.


----------



## Phil S

The first few posts explained the majority of the problem very well. But there's a major piece of history that also has to be taken into account. The result of this history is that US railroads are for the most part privately owned and operated. Yes, in a few areas the road itself is owned and operated by Amtrak, and in a few areas by state gov't - NC and NM come to mind (also MI?). And there is an increasing tendency for gov't to buy out the private company and run and maintain the road itself. But the vast majority of the roads are still privately owned.

Contrast this with virtually every other country in the world, where the rail-road (infrastructure) is gov't owned and private companies pay to run trains on that road. The Eurozone is undergoing a revolution in rail operation, the whole point of which is to open access to all the gov't owned railroads to any and all train operators. So far, it's working beautifully. Operators, both freight and passenger, are competing with each other and, as best I can tell, prices are going down while service is going up. This is the way we do highways (with a few exceptions) and air routes and waterways in the US but not how we do railroads. And until this changes, we're stuck with slow infrequent passenger service no matter how much money we throw at it.

Yes, gov't can build brand-new high-speed lines. Buy the land, and build the track, and then either run or franchise the operations or just possibly allow multiple companies to compete, though this becomes harder and harder as speeds increase and the necessary technology gets more complicated. But, as others keep saying, HSR really only makes sense along the densely populated corridors, which still leaves a huge part of the country in need of much better passenger rail. And even in the corridors, it would be insane to build HSR w/o building on existing freight corridors. No, freight and HSR can’t share track but they can certainly share right-of-way and often the land adjoining the existing r-o-w’s would be cheaply acquired.

I’m not saying this will ever happen in the US – climate change may preclude any possibility of this before we come to our senses and start the process. I’m only saying it’s a necessary step if we ever are to have passenger rail like the rest of the developed world.

Flame away!


----------



## VentureForth

One day when our fossil fuels are gone, and we aren't able to fly airplanes using solar power, we'll have to learn to provide a substantial infrastructure capable of ferrying hundreds of thousands of individuals across the country at hundreds of miles per hour.

WellTrained, you're essentially correct. However, government will be hard pressed to fund any sort of National publically owned rail system while airlines continue to have the power to lobby against such a change.

The problems are that state government are thinking SO BIG that the goals are unattainable. California's HSR, Texas' mega-super highway and rail project - well intentioned but scoped beyond practicallity.

Public vs Private has always been a ping pong match. The British and Japanese have privatized their rail lines. Worked incredible wonders in Japan; not so much in the UK. India Rail is extremely efficient providing very affordable travel to the masses and comfortable long distance travel all while paying a living wage (for India) and managing to turn a profit.

The US is very unique in that there are huge population centers separated by huge vast expanses. This makes the economic business model very difficult to make.


----------



## dlagrua

What bothers me is that Amtrak trains are slower today than they were back in the 1930's. On the initial record breaking run of the Burlington Zephyr in 1934 the railroad was able to travel from *Denver to Chicago in 13 hours*. It was known as the "dawn to dusk" run. True that was a special publicity stunt but 77 years later we should be able to do better. Today with more modern equipment, Amtrak takes 20 hours to travel exactly the same distance.

Here is a look back



If you want to tour that train today it has been restored and now is on permanent exhibit at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago.


----------



## VentureForth

Another pesky interruption is the fact that the train has to slow down, speed up, stop, discharge passengers and take on passengers along the way. All while dancing with the Freights.


----------



## VentureForth

dlagrua said:


> What bothers me is that Amtrak trains are slower today than they were back in the 1930's. On the initial record breaking run of the Burlington Zephyr in 1934 the railroad was able to travel from *Denver to Chicago in 13 hours*. It was known as the "dawn to dusk" run. True that was a special publicity stunt but 77 years later we should be able to do better. Today with more modern equipment, *Amtrak takes 20 hours to travel exactly the same distance*.


So, let's continue with the comparisons. According to Wiki,



> The Burlington's contemporary passenger trains plied the same distance in *around 25 hours*.


As for the preparations required, still something you won't see today:



> The railroad spared no expense in planning the operations.* All other trains along the Zephyr's route were diverted to sidings *and the *turnouts were spiked into the proper alignment *for the Zephyr's run. Track and maintenance of way workers checked every single spike and bolt along the train's route to ensure that there would not be any problems, and temporary speed signs were installed along the route to warn the Zephyr's crew of curves that would be dangerous at high speeds. On the day of the dash, *every road grade crossing was manned by a flagman *to stop automobile traffic ahead of the train and to ensure that the crossing was clear.


So, yes, context is everything. It would take that level of effort again, and I'm certain that the modern equipment used would have no problem matching that speed under those conditions.


----------



## xyzzy

Passenger train speeds took a hit in 1947 when the ICC imposed the so-called 49/59/69/79 rule. Speeds were further reduced when railroads had to cut expenses and discontinued their all-stops locals, requiring their fastest trains to make more station stops. And finally, it didn't make economic sense to maintain lots of track to FRA Class IV or V standards just for freight.

One fundamental difference between the US and Europe -- and I'm in Europe as I write this -- is the proportion of freight that moves by rail versus truck. You can ride the railways often in the UK, for example, without seeing a single goods train more often than once in a blue moon. Even at night. Or, the ones you do see have 30 cars or less. That's not how the US economy works. The_ raison d'être _of railroads in the US is, and for the most part always has been, freight. In Europe for the most part it's passengers, although there are exceptions.


----------



## TimePeace

xyzzy said:


> [SIZE=14.399999618530273px] [/SIZE]
> 
> One fundamental difference between the US and Europe -- and I'm in Europe as I write this -- is the proportion of freight that moves by rail versus truck. You can ride the railways often in the UK, for example, without seeing a single goods train more often than once in a blue moon. Even at night. Or, the ones you do see have 30 cars or less. That's not how the US economy works. The_ raison d'être _of railroads in the US is, and for the most part always has been, freight. In Europe for the most part it's passengers, although there are exceptions.


That is a very good point. I recently heard a radio piece which made the point that, while we are always hearing how superior the passenger rail services in other countries are to those in the US (and they are) - the US freight rail system is by far the largest in the world.


----------



## chakk

dlagrua said:


> What bothers me is that Amtrak trains are slower today than they were back in the 1930's. On the initial record breaking run of the Burlington Zephyr in 1934 the railroad was able to travel from *Denver to Chicago in 13 hours*. It was known as the "dawn to dusk" run. True that was a special publicity stunt but 77 years later we should be able to do better. Today with more modern equipment, Amtrak takes 20 hours to travel exactly the same distance.Here is a look back


Nice video, especially with United Airlines' adopted theme song (Gershwin's "Rhapsody in Blue") as accompaniment. And now United flies 9 planes per day from Denver to Chicago in 2 hours -- each of which can carry more people than the 3-car Burlington Zephyr of 1034.


----------



## Phil S

I tried to reply to some of the especially interesting posts and the forum program ate what i wrote, left me with nothing. Apparently there are hot keys that simply throw away whatever one has written, and I hit the hot keys inadvertently because I'm a 2-finger typist. Sure wish we could get rid of those features/bugs. I'll try again tomorrow.


----------



## xyzzy

Maine Rider said:


> xyzzy said:
> 
> 
> 
> [SIZE=14.399999618530273px] [/SIZE]
> 
> One fundamental difference between the US and Europe -- and I'm in Europe as I write this -- is the proportion of freight that moves by rail versus truck. You can ride the railways often in the UK, for example, without seeing a single goods train more often than once in a blue moon. Even at night. Or, the ones you do see have 30 cars or less. That's not how the US economy works. The_ raison d'être _of railroads in the US is, and for the most part always has been, freight. In Europe for the most part it's passengers, although there are exceptions.
> 
> 
> 
> That is a very good point. I recently heard a radio piece which made the point that, while we are always hearing how superior the passenger rail services in other countries are to those in the US (and they are) - the US freight rail system is by far the largest in the world.
Click to expand...

Wikipedia has the numbers for freight by rail. The top three by ton-kilometer are China, US, and Russia -- all the same order of magnitude. Then there is a huge gap to #4, which is India. Canada (#5) moves more freight by rail than the entire European Union (#6). There are many ways to slice and dice the statistics, but generally speaking the results are the same.


----------



## Mike O'Connor

I just checked on train service from San Antonio. Now I live in Chicago and we have great service between here and Milwaukee, approximately the same distance. And I actually live in a suburb north of chicago, with a stop on that route. So my rail time is 60 min flat. It's 90 min. from Chicago. But the times for the trip to Austin from SA is 2hours plus and the return trip is over 3 hours as listed. That is ridiculous. The departure times are perfect for day trip, 7am from San Antonio and 6:30 pm return. But the travel times are egregious.


----------



## SarahZ

Mike O'Connor said:


> I just checked on train service from San Antonio. Now I live in Chicago and we have great service between here and Milwaukee, approximately the same distance. And I actually live in a suburb north of chicago, with a stop on that route. So my rail time is 60 min flat. It's 90 min. from Chicago. But the times for the trip to Austin from SA is 2hours plus and the return trip is over 3 hours as listed. That is ridiculous. The departure times are perfect for day trip, 7am from San Antonio and 6:30 pm return. But the travel times are egregious.


Unfortunately, the train can't go 75-80 mph on the interstate like a vehicle. Amtrak trains are subject to freight schedules, track issues, and speed zones, and sometimes the route isn't direct. Additionally, unlike a car, the train stops in San Marcos to pick up and discharge passengers, which adds time.

The schedule is sometimes padded to allow for delays, so while the timetable may say three hours, it may be closer to 2.5 hours. It's still longer than driving, and I sympathize, but until we have a dedicated passenger rail service with its own tracks and the ability for high-speed rail, the train will sometimes take longer than driving.


----------



## Train Rider

Mike O'Connor said:


> I just checked on train service from San Antonio. Now I live in Chicago and we have great service between here and Milwaukee, approximately the same distance. And I actually live in a suburb north of chicago, with a stop on that route. So my rail time is 60 min flat. It's 90 min. from Chicago. But the times for the trip to Austin from SA is 2hours plus and the return trip is over 3 hours as listed. That is ridiculous. The departure times are perfect for day trip, 7am from San Antonio and 6:30 pm return. But the travel times are egregious.


I live in Milwaukee and ride the Hiawatha. The Hiawatha is fast because its on a double-track system and because WisDOT and IDOT pay for it. TE between SAS and Austin is a long-distance train with minimal support from TxDOT.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Sorcha said:


> Mike O'Connor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just checked on train service from San Antonio. Now I live in Chicago and we have great service between here and Milwaukee, approximately the same distance. And I actually live in a suburb north of chicago, with a stop on that route. So my rail time is 60 min flat. It's 90 min. from Chicago. But the times for the trip to Austin from SA is 2hours plus and the return trip is over 3 hours as listed. That is ridiculous. The departure times are perfect for day trip, 7am from San Antonio and 6:30 pm return. But the travel times are egregious.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, the train can't go 75-80 mph on the interstate like a vehicle. Amtrak trains are subject to freight schedules, track issues, and speed zones, and sometimes the route isn't direct. Additionally, unlike a car, the train stops in San Marcos to pick up and discharge passengers, which adds time. The schedule is sometimes padded to allow for delays, so while the timetable may say three hours, it may be closer to 2.5 hours. It's still longer than driving, and I sympathize, but until we have a dedicated passenger rail service with its own tracks and the ability for high-speed rail, the train will sometimes take longer than driving.
Click to expand...

I can beat the Texas Eagle between Austin and San Antonio traveling at 59MPH, including a stop in San Marcos for the same duration as the train typically stops. There is no explanation or metaphor that can make the Texas Eagle's schedule look reasonable in 2013. Even a convoy of full sized school buses can outpace it. New customers are right to be shocked and amazed that Amtrak has zero chance of outpacing a car or bus. You can't make Amtrak more relevant by reducing the speed and adding more padding, but that's exactly what we've been doing for most of Amtrak's existance. Thanks to millions of retiring babyboomers Amtrak's slow and meandering trains are actually doing fairly well, but when those retirees are gone Amtrak's national network will follow them into history.


----------



## Train Rider

Devil's Advocate said:


> Sorcha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mike O'Connor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just checked on train service from San Antonio. Now I live in Chicago and we have great service between here and Milwaukee, approximately the same distance. And I actually live in a suburb north of chicago, with a stop on that route. So my rail time is 60 min flat. It's 90 min. from Chicago. But the times for the trip to Austin from SA is 2hours plus and the return trip is over 3 hours as listed. That is ridiculous. The departure times are perfect for day trip, 7am from San Antonio and 6:30 pm return. But the travel times are egregious.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, the train can't go 75-80 mph on the interstate like a vehicle. Amtrak trains are subject to freight schedules, track issues, and speed zones, and sometimes the route isn't direct. Additionally, unlike a car, the train stops in San Marcos to pick up and discharge passengers, which adds time. The schedule is sometimes padded to allow for delays, so while the timetable may say three hours, it may be closer to 2.5 hours. It's still longer than driving, and I sympathize, but until we have a dedicated passenger rail service with its own tracks and the ability for high-speed rail, the train will sometimes take longer than driving.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can beat the Texas Eagle between Austin and San Antonio traveling at 59MPH, including a stop in San Marcos for the same duration as the train typically stops. There is no explanation or metaphor that can make the Texas Eagle's schedule look reasonable in 2013. Even a convoy of full sized school buses can outpace it. New customers are right to be shocked and amazed that Amtrak has zero chance of outpacing a car or bus. You can't make Amtrak more relevant by reducing the speed and adding more padding, but that's exactly what we've been doing for most of Amtrak's existance. Thanks to millions of retiring babyboomers Amtrak's slow and meandering trains are actually doing fairly well, but when those retirees are gone Amtrak's national network will follow them into history.
Click to expand...

I rode the TE in February during the bustitution period between Longview and Fort Worth. We left FW an hour late and were 15 minutes early into San Antonio. Plenty of padding along that stretch.


----------



## DET63

WellTrained said:


> The first few posts explained the majority of the problem very well. But there's a major piece of history that also has to be taken into account. The result of this history is that US railroads are for the most part privately owned and operated. Yes, in a few areas the road itself is owned and operated by Amtrak, and in a few areas by state gov't - NC and NM come to mind (also MI?). And there is an increasing tendency for gov't to buy out the private company and run and maintain the road itself. But the vast majority of the roads are still privately owned.
> Contrast this with virtually every other country in the world, where the rail-road (infrastructure) is gov't owned and private companies pay to run trains on that road. The Eurozone is undergoing a revolution in rail operation, the whole point of which is to open access to all the gov't owned railroads to any and all train operators. So far, it's working beautifully. Operators, both freight and passenger, are competing with each other and, as best I can tell, prices are going down while service is going up. This is the way we do highways (with a few exceptions) and air routes and waterways in the US but not how we do railroads. And until this changes, we're stuck with slow infrequent passenger service no matter how much money we throw at it.
> 
> Yes, gov't can build brand-new high-speed lines. Buy the land, and build the track, and then either run or franchise the operations or just possibly allow multiple companies to compete, though this becomes harder and harder as speeds increase and the necessary technology gets more complicated. But, as others keep saying, HSR really only makes sense along the densely populated corridors, which still leaves a huge part of the country in need of much better passenger rail. And even in the corridors, it would be insane to build HSR w/o building on existing freight corridors. No, freight and HSR can’t share track but they can certainly share right-of-way and often the land adjoining the existing r-o-w’s would be cheaply acquired.
> 
> I’m not saying this will ever happen in the US – climate change may preclude any possibility of this before we come to our senses and start the process. I’m only saying it’s a necessary step if we ever are to have passenger rail like the rest of the developed world.
> 
> Flame away!


Government ownership = socialism. Socialism = the first giant step on the road to communism.

Yes, many people think this way, and it's hard to tell them they're wrong.


----------



## Train Rider

DET63 said:


> WellTrained said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first few posts explained the majority of the problem very well. But there's a major piece of history that also has to be taken into account. The result of this history is that US railroads are for the most part privately owned and operated. Yes, in a few areas the road itself is owned and operated by Amtrak, and in a few areas by state gov't - NC and NM come to mind (also MI?). And there is an increasing tendency for gov't to buy out the private company and run and maintain the road itself. But the vast majority of the roads are still privately owned.
> Contrast this with virtually every other country in the world, where the rail-road (infrastructure) is gov't owned and private companies pay to run trains on that road. The Eurozone is undergoing a revolution in rail operation, the whole point of which is to open access to all the gov't owned railroads to any and all train operators. So far, it's working beautifully. Operators, both freight and passenger, are competing with each other and, as best I can tell, prices are going down while service is going up. This is the way we do highways (with a few exceptions) and air routes and waterways in the US but not how we do railroads. And until this changes, we're stuck with slow infrequent passenger service no matter how much money we throw at it.
> 
> Yes, gov't can build brand-new high-speed lines. Buy the land, and build the track, and then either run or franchise the operations or just possibly allow multiple companies to compete, though this becomes harder and harder as speeds increase and the necessary technology gets more complicated. But, as others keep saying, HSR really only makes sense along the densely populated corridors, which still leaves a huge part of the country in need of much better passenger rail. And even in the corridors, it would be insane to build HSR w/o building on existing freight corridors. No, freight and HSR can’t share track but they can certainly share right-of-way and often the land adjoining the existing r-o-w’s would be cheaply acquired.
> 
> I’m not saying this will ever happen in the US – climate change may preclude any possibility of this before we come to our senses and start the process. I’m only saying it’s a necessary step if we ever are to have passenger rail like the rest of the developed world.
> 
> Flame away!
> 
> 
> 
> Government ownership = socialism. Socialism = the first giant step on the road to communism.
> 
> Yes, many people think this way, and it's hard to tell them they're wrong.
Click to expand...

No only is nationalizing rail lines politically a non-starter, any discussion of it will marginalize rail advocates to the fringe.


----------



## jis

WellTrained said:


> Yes, gov't can build brand-new high-speed lines. Buy the land, and build the track, and then either run or franchise the operations or just possibly allow multiple companies to compete, though this becomes harder and harder as speeds increase and the necessary technology gets more complicated. But, as others keep saying, HSR really only makes sense along the densely populated corridors, which still leaves a huge part of the country in need of much better passenger rail. And even in the corridors, it would be insane to build HSR w/o building on existing freight corridors. No, freight and HSR can’t share track but they can certainly share right-of-way and often the land adjoining the existing r-o-w’s would be cheaply acquired.


Irrespective of who builds it, part of the problem lies with the current RoWs. For example, the NYC RoW across New York has been determined to be good for upto 125mph, but to go above that consistently it will require a new straighter RoW in many places. Most other RoWs are even worse. The NEC itself is going to be an incredibly uneve hi-lo-hi-lo speed highly energy inefficient ride (even more so than it already is) even if some small segments can operate at 180mph on the current RoW. So for Higher Speed yes current RoWs can be used, but not for real High Speed. So just askibg to do the impossible will not make it possible irrespective of whether the government, private or public-private partnerships build it.
The goal should focus on acceptable runtimes between designated O/D, and preferably minimizing energy used to achieve such runtimes.


----------



## RichardK

Devil's Advocate said:


> Sorcha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mike O'Connor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just checked on train service from San Antonio. Now I live in Chicago and we have great service between here and Milwaukee, approximately the same distance. And I actually live in a suburb north of chicago, with a stop on that route. So my rail time is 60 min flat. It's 90 min. from Chicago. But the times for the trip to Austin from SA is 2hours plus and the return trip is over 3 hours as listed. That is ridiculous. The departure times are perfect for day trip, 7am from San Antonio and 6:30 pm return. But the travel times are egregious.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, the train can't go 75-80 mph on the interstate like a vehicle. Amtrak trains are subject to freight schedules, track issues, and speed zones, and sometimes the route isn't direct. Additionally, unlike a car, the train stops in San Marcos to pick up and discharge passengers, which adds time. The schedule is sometimes padded to allow for delays, so while the timetable may say three hours, it may be closer to 2.5 hours. It's still longer than driving, and I sympathize, but until we have a dedicated passenger rail service with its own tracks and the ability for high-speed rail, the train will sometimes take longer than driving.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can beat the Texas Eagle between Austin and San Antonio traveling at 59MPH, including a stop in San Marcos for the same duration as the train typically stops. There is no explanation or metaphor that can make the Texas Eagle's schedule look reasonable in 2013. Even a convoy of full sized school buses can outpace it. New customers are right to be shocked and amazed that Amtrak has zero chance of outpacing a car or bus. You can't make Amtrak more relevant by reducing the speed and adding more padding, but that's exactly what we've been doing for most of Amtrak's existance. Thanks to millions of retiring babyboomers Amtrak's slow and meandering trains are actually doing fairly well, but when those retirees are gone Amtrak's national network will follow them into history.
Click to expand...

I know what you are talking about. By the same token, it take 6.5 hours to go between Dallas and Austin. This is a 3.25 hour trip by car. One problem is that it meanders through Fort Worth. I am not sure why there is this routing now, with the Trinity Railway Express having up 21 departures each way between Dallas and Fort Worth. Passengers could easily connect in Dallas. On the other hand, I am not sure about the existance or quality of trackage from Dallas direct to Austin.


----------



## SarahZ

Devil's Advocate said:


> Sorcha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mike O'Connor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just checked on train service from San Antonio. Now I live in Chicago and we have great service between here and Milwaukee, approximately the same distance. And I actually live in a suburb north of chicago, with a stop on that route. So my rail time is 60 min flat. It's 90 min. from Chicago. But the times for the trip to Austin from SA is 2hours plus and the return trip is over 3 hours as listed. That is ridiculous. The departure times are perfect for day trip, 7am from San Antonio and 6:30 pm return. But the travel times are egregious.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, the train can't go 75-80 mph on the interstate like a vehicle. Amtrak trains are subject to freight schedules, track issues, and speed zones, and sometimes the route isn't direct. Additionally, unlike a car, the train stops in San Marcos to pick up and discharge passengers, which adds time. The schedule is sometimes padded to allow for delays, so while the timetable may say three hours, it may be closer to 2.5 hours. It's still longer than driving, and* I sympathize, but until we have a dedicated passenger rail service with its own tracks and the ability for high-speed rail, the train will sometimes take longer than driving.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can beat the Texas Eagle between Austin and San Antonio traveling at 59MPH, including a stop in San Marcos for the same duration as the train typically stops. There is no explanation or metaphor that can make the Texas Eagle's schedule look reasonable in 2013. Even a convoy of full sized school buses can outpace it. New customers are right to be shocked and amazed that Amtrak has zero chance of outpacing a car or bus. You can't make Amtrak more relevant by reducing the speed and adding more padding, but that's exactly what we've been doing for most of Amtrak's existance. Thanks to millions of retiring babyboomers Amtrak's slow and meandering trains are actually doing fairly well, but when those retirees are gone Amtrak's national network will follow them into history.
Click to expand...

I didn't say he was wrong to complain. In fact, I said, "I sympathize..." (see the bolded point). I provided as much info as I could to answer his question since I wasn't sure if he knew about Amtrak sharing the freight lines or the stop in San Marcos. I could not get into specifics because I do not work for Amtrak or the freight company/companies that use that line, nor do I have the freight schedule. I wasn't apologizing; I was explaining.


----------



## VentureForth

RichardK said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorcha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mike O'Connor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just checked on train service from San Antonio. Now I live in Chicago and we have great service between here and Milwaukee, approximately the same distance. And I actually live in a suburb north of chicago, with a stop on that route. So my rail time is 60 min flat. It's 90 min. from Chicago. But the times for the trip to Austin from SA is 2hours plus and the return trip is over 3 hours as listed. That is ridiculous. The departure times are perfect for day trip, 7am from San Antonio and 6:30 pm return. But the travel times are egregious.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, the train can't go 75-80 mph on the interstate like a vehicle. Amtrak trains are subject to freight schedules, track issues, and speed zones, and sometimes the route isn't direct. Additionally, unlike a car, the train stops in San Marcos to pick up and discharge passengers, which adds time. The schedule is sometimes padded to allow for delays, so while the timetable may say three hours, it may be closer to 2.5 hours. It's still longer than driving, and I sympathize, but until we have a dedicated passenger rail service with its own tracks and the ability for high-speed rail, the train will sometimes take longer than driving.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can beat the Texas Eagle between Austin and San Antonio traveling at 59MPH, including a stop in San Marcos for the same duration as the train typically stops. There is no explanation or metaphor that can make the Texas Eagle's schedule look reasonable in 2013. Even a convoy of full sized school buses can outpace it. New customers are right to be shocked and amazed that Amtrak has zero chance of outpacing a car or bus. You can't make Amtrak more relevant by reducing the speed and adding more padding, but that's exactly what we've been doing for most of Amtrak's existance. Thanks to millions of retiring babyboomers Amtrak's slow and meandering trains are actually doing fairly well, but when those retirees are gone Amtrak's national network will follow them into history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know what you are talking about. By the same token, it take 6.5 hours to go between Dallas and Austin. This is a 3.25 hour trip by car. One problem is that it meanders through Fort Worth. I am not sure why there is this routing now, with the Trinity Railway Express having up 21 departures each way between Dallas and Fort Worth. Passengers could easily connect in Dallas. On the other hand, I am not sure about the existance or quality of trackage from Dallas direct to Austin.
Click to expand...

30 unnecessary minutes are found in Fort Worth where the Texas Eagle makes a back up move through the very busy Tower 55. That's on a good day. This is an intersection that handles between 100 and 120 trains per day. When/If the Texas Eagle moves to the TRE line, it will improve the timing dramatically. But I doubt that the schedule will change much, if at all. Amtrak likes to be on time, even if it means upping the padding.

Most of the track between Austin and San Antonio is good quality. But it is EXTREMELY congested. There are multiple projects being studied (some maybe even in work) to route the majority of freight traffic around Austin, allowing Amtrak a steady jaunt through the Metro area.


----------



## George Harris

Sorcha said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can beat the Texas Eagle between Austin and San Antonio traveling at 59MPH, including a stop in San Marcos for the same duration as the train typically stops. There is no explanation or metaphor that can make the Texas Eagle's schedule look reasonable in 2013. Even a convoy of full sized school buses can outpace it. New customers are right to be shocked and amazed that Amtrak has zero chance of outpacing a car or bus. You can't make Amtrak more relevant by reducing the speed and adding more padding, but that's exactly what we've been doing for most of Amtrak's existance. Thanks to millions of retiring babyboomers Amtrak's slow and meandering trains are actually doing fairly well, but when those retirees are gone Amtrak's national network will follow them into history.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say he was wrong to complain. In fact, I said, "I sympathize..." (see the bolded point). I provided as much info as I could to answer his question since I wasn't sure if he knew about Amtrak sharing the freight lines or the stop in San Marcos. I could not get into specifics because I do not work for Amtrak or the freight company/companies that use that line, nor do I have the freight schedule. I wasn't apologizing; I was explaining.
Click to expand...

I realize that the explanations do not matter to those that neither know nor care about the issues that result in Amtrak being slow, but nonetheless, they are the reality that they and their passengers have to live with.

A significant issue with the Texas Eagle entering and leaving San Antonio that makes it slower than either of the pre-Amtrak trains that ran this route is the lack of a direct line into or out of the ex Southern Pacific station that it uses. If the train is on the ex-MoPac line, it goes right past the MoPac station, then reaches a point where it must back up to go to the SP station, or goes through a very slow speed connection, I do not know which. If the train is on the ex MKT line, then it goes under the ex SP line a few miles east of the ex SP station, goes to a connection that is west of the station, and must back into it. On the departure, it must back out to the sam connection and then go forward. None of these tracks over which these gyrations take place are fast.

I think the speed limit on the ex MKT track is all 50 mph or less. Some of the ex MoPac may be as fast as 70 mph, but for both there are numerous locations where the speed limit is less. Coming out of Austin there is a low speed curve immediately south of the station followed by a fairly length grade up which also acts to slow the run time.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

George Harris said:


> Sorcha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can beat the Texas Eagle between Austin and San Antonio traveling at 59MPH, including a stop in San Marcos for the same duration as the train typically stops. There is no explanation or metaphor that can make the Texas Eagle's schedule look reasonable in 2013. Even a convoy of full sized school buses can outpace it. New customers are right to be shocked and amazed that Amtrak has zero chance of outpacing a car or bus. You can't make Amtrak more relevant by reducing the speed and adding more padding, but that's exactly what we've been doing for most of Amtrak's existance. Thanks to millions of retiring babyboomers Amtrak's slow and meandering trains are actually doing fairly well, but when those retirees are gone Amtrak's national network will follow them into history.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say he was wrong to complain. In fact, I said, "I sympathize..." (see the bolded point). I provided as much info as I could to answer his question since I wasn't sure if he knew about Amtrak sharing the freight lines or the stop in San Marcos. I could not get into specifics because I do not work for Amtrak or the freight company/companies that use that line, nor do I have the freight schedule. I wasn't apologizing; I was explaining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I realize that the explanations do not matter to those that neither know nor care about the issues that result in Amtrak being slow, but nonetheless, they are the reality that they and their passengers have to live with. A significant issue with the Texas Eagle entering and leaving San Antonio that makes it slower than either of the pre-Amtrak trains that ran this route is the lack of a direct line into or out of the ex Southern Pacific station that it uses. If the train is on the ex-MoPac line, it goes right past the MoPac station, then reaches a point where it must back up to go to the SP station, or goes through a very slow speed connection, I do not know which. If the train is on the ex MKT line, then it goes under the ex SP line a few miles east of the ex SP station, goes to a connection that is west of the station, and must back into it. On the departure, it must back out to the sam connection and then go forward. None of these tracks over which these gyrations take place are fast. I think the speed limit on the ex MKT track is all 50 mph or less. Some of the ex MoPac may be as fast as 70 mph, but for both there are numerous locations where the speed limit is less. Coming out of Austin there is a low speed curve immediately south of the station followed by a fairly length grade up which also acts to slow the run time.
Click to expand...

@Sorcha: It's true that you didn't contest the complaint outright. I just wanted to point out how little effect the speed limit or the brief stop in SMC has on this equation. The TE has regressed to the point that virtually anything on the road, including a dilapidated pickup truck hauling it's maximum weight in scrap metal, would beat it.

@George: Within San Antonio the southbound TE generally stays out of trouble until it crosses 281 as it approaches downtown where it slows down considerably. By the time the TE crosses I-10 it will be slowing to a walking speed crawl while passing through where the MP yard once stood. Then it crosses some slow interchanges and turns where the MKT shops were previously located on the way to the SP station. Running the southbound TE on the same tracks as the northbound TE would probably shave a half hour from the travel time.


----------



## saxman

RichardK said:


> I know what you are talking about. By the same token, it take 6.5 hours to go between Dallas and Austin. This is a 3.25 hour trip by car. One problem is that it meanders through Fort Worth. I am not sure why there is this routing now, with the Trinity Railway Express having up 21 departures each way between Dallas and Fort Worth. Passengers could easily connect in Dallas. On the other hand, I am not sure about the existance or quality of trackage from Dallas direct to Austin.


Skipping Fort Worth would be bad idea from a revenue standpoint. But add the fact, there is no good rail from Dallas to Austin without first going to FTW. And FTW is a major maintenance/stopover point for the Eagle and Heartland Flyer. It's also the point where the Flyer departs from and there are no decent tracks there either for it to cut over to Dallas instead.


----------



## battalion51

If anything is going to speed up the TE between Dallas and Fort Worth the easiest way to do it is to move the TE over to the TRE line through Centreport. There has been a lot of work done to double track on the TRE line, and the only thing holding it back to my knowledge (I know this will shock many) is politics. A commuter train can go from Ft. Worth ITC to Dallas Union (both shared with Amtrak) in about 55 minutes (including 7 station stops). There would be minimal impact on TRE since 21 is slated to run through during the midday lull, and 22 should be able to power through before the afternoon rush sets start to come out on the main line. The run time over UP is about the same, but what kills the train is having to back in through Tower 55. If they were to switch over to TRE that lengthy (and delay proned) back up move disappears since TRE's route puts the train facing the right direction upon arrival at FTW. Switching over to the TRE line you could likely add a stop at Centreport to serve the Mid-Cities and add an easy connection to/from DFW Airport.


----------



## Nathanael

Train Rider said:


> I live in Milwaukee and ride the Hiawatha. The Hiawatha is fast because its on a double-track system and because WisDOT and IDOT pay for it.


On top of that, most of the trackage is owned by Metra (the Illinois commuter railroad), which has an interest in decent-speed passenger trains. (The northern end is owned by freight railroad CP.)


> TE between SAS and Austin is a long-distance train with minimal support from TxDOT.


And not used by any other passenger trains, and the track is entirely owned by freight railroads.


battalion51 said:


> If anything is going to speed up the TE between Dallas and Fort Worth the easiest way to do it is to move the TE over to the TRE line through Centreport. There has been a lot of work done to double track on the TRE line, and the only thing holding it back to my knowledge (I know this will shock many) is politics.


It's actually worse than that. It's a fight over insurance & liability. Something similar happened in Florida and in Massachusetts during the setup of commuter rail, but was resolved eventually in each case. I think, though I may be wrong, that it's something like this.
Amtrak needs TRE to accept liability for certain parts of certain crashes -- Amtrak does not want to be responsible for injuries to TRE passengers caused by TRE in a TRE-Amtrak crash. However, TRE is an agency which inherits the sovereign immunity of the state of Texas and by default isn't liable for anything (IIRC). Accordingly, in any crash, all the ambulance chasers will go after Amtrak, unless TRE gets legislation from the state legislature allowing it to waive sovereign immunity for TRE.

I may have it wrong, but it's something at *least* that convoluted. And it's definitely insurance.

Apparently if the insurance issue is resolved, it unlocks a high speed rail grant to double track and improve parts of the TRE line, and allows Amtrak to shift to TRE soon after. The insurance issue has been preventing the high-speed rail grant from being spent.


----------



## battalion51

Well put Nathanael. I wasn't going to get into the whole issue, but the politics surrounding the insurance piece is a huge challenge. And in a red state such as the great state of Texas doing something transit friendly is a bit of a lift.


----------



## VentureForth

Here is an article on the subject from the Star-Telegram. It says that Texas has to return the money to the Feds if they don't spend it or resolve their issues by August 31st of last year. Don't know what happened since...


----------



## TVRM610

And this is the problem! People sit and say "why can't Amtrak do this or that" and they cry like a little baby and say "why are the trains so slow."

Here's a little lesson... Even when dedicated passenger rail exists... Amtrak can't run on it due to politics and insurance issues! So it's not nearly as simple as people think it is. I know I'm mostly preaching to the choir here but the general public needs to know how amazing it is that Amtrak is not only able to run trains in 2013... But they are able to add NEW routes (such as Norfolk VA) and improve running time on existing routes (St. Louis corridor). It's nothing short of miraculous that they can get anything done.


----------



## VentureForth

I asked the writer of the original Star Telegram article for an update. We'll see....


----------



## jersey42

VentureForth said:


> I asked the writer of the original Star Telegram article for an update. We'll see....


What is the link to the original article? The link you posted just brings you back to this thread.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

TVRM610 said:


> And this is the problem! People sit and say "why can't Amtrak do this or that" and they cry like a little baby and say "why are the trains so slow."


How exactly does name calling help you make your point?



TVRM610 said:


> Here's a little lesson... Even when dedicated passenger rail exists... Amtrak can't run on it due to politics and insurance issues!


To be fair we're talking about Texas here. Not every state has a government as perpetually confused and inept as ours seems to be.


----------



## Ryan

VentureForth said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't make Amtrak more relevant by reducing the speed and adding more padding, but that's exactly what we've been doing for most of Amtrak's existance.
> 
> 
> 
> But I doubt that the schedule will change much, if at all. Amtrak likes to be on time, even if it means upping the padding.
Click to expand...

I would love to see a quantatative analysis of the Amtrak system to see how travel times and padding have changed throughout the system over the last 40 years, I think that the results would be illuminating.



> Thanks to millions of retiring babyboomers Amtrak's slow and meandering trains are actually doing fairly well, but when those retirees are gone Amtrak's national network will follow them into history.


I'm also curious about the average age of the Amtrak passenger - it seems to me that I see just as many young people and families on the train as I do retirees.


----------



## VentureForth

jersey42 said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> 
> I asked the writer of the original Star Telegram article for an update. We'll see....
> 
> 
> 
> What is the link to the original article? The link you posted just brings you back to this thread.
Click to expand...

Link fixed. Sorry 'bout that!


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Ryan said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Devil said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't make Amtrak more relevant by reducing the speed and adding more padding, but that's exactly what we've been doing for most of Amtrak's existance.
> 
> 
> 
> But I doubt that the schedule will change much, if at all. Amtrak likes to be on time, even if it means upping the padding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would love to see a quantatative analysis of the Amtrak system to see how travel times and padding have changed throughout the system over the last 40 years, I think that the results would be illuminating.
Click to expand...

Amtrak does try to be on time for a rating relevant terminus. Not so much with the intermediate stops. I do agree it would be interesting to see how the network as a whole has fared over the years.


Ryan said:


> Devil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks to millions of retiring babyboomers Amtrak's slow and meandering trains are actually doing fairly well, but when those retirees are gone Amtrak's national network will follow them into history.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm also curious about the average age of the Amtrak passenger - it seems to me that I see just as many young people and families on the train as I do retirees.
Click to expand...

It has been claimed on multiple occasions that coach passengers (who trend younger) create a net loss while sleeper passengers (who trend older) create a net gain. If that's true then a loss of retirees could result in a bit of a problem for Amtrak. Many of the sleepers I've had looked like elderly assistance homes. Which probably explains the continued existence of the SCA I suppose.


----------



## VentureForth

How do younger coach passengers create a net loss where retirees net gain? I've seen plenty of younger folks in the sleepers and my elders in coach. I've seen young professionals in the diner and retirees down in the cafe.


----------



## battalion51

I think that's a statement on more of the "general" dynamics than anything else. The average sleeping car passenger is typically going to have more expendable cash than the average coach passenger, and the older generation tends to have more expendable cash than the younger generation. You can usually put it in terms of a sleeping car passenger is there for the journey whereas a coach passenger is there for the transportation. Not to say the reverse is never true, but in broad strokes its a decent assessment IMHO.


----------



## TVRM610

People have said for 40 years now (I'm guessing I really don't know, but I've been hearing it for at least 10) that when the "older people die off no one will be riding trains" - either no one is dying, or younger people are taking trains too.

Besides... There will always be soon to be and recently retired people who have an extra dissposable income and want to travel a slower pace. I'm def. NOT saying those are the only people who take trains and sleepers... Indeed I know that they are not, but even if that WAS the case.

In all honesty I can't think of a demographic that I have NOT seen on board a train in sleeper class. I've seen Menonite families, young couples with children, young couples without children, business executives, college age, retired, as well as single adults.

Even when I rode VIA rail Canadian I was expecting more of the "land cruise" clientele, but was pleasantly surprised to see a large variety of customers.


----------



## crescent2

And don't forget, young people get old! There will always be old people and young people (hopefully, anyway).


----------



## TVRM610

Yes Crescent2... Exactly!!!


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Baby boomers are not only creating the largest retirement wave we've ever seen, they're also going to be the last generation to retire with anything resembling a traditional pension or 100% of their Social Security payout. All signs are pointing to a unique one-off retirement bubble that is unlikely to be repeated for several generations to come, if ever. Generation X and Y are going to be working much later into life in return for much less purchasing power than those who came before us. Sorry to burst your bubble, but some things really do change from generation to generation.


----------



## the_traveler

DET63 said:


> WellTrained said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government ownership = socialism. Socialism = the first giant step on the road to communism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WellTrained said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, many people think this way, and it's hard to tell them they're wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I don't want to get political, but this is totally wrong!

Socialism and communism are totally unrelated. Many people do not know the difference. Most Americans think Communism and they think the former USSR. It was *NEVER* a Communist country.The name USSR stood for the United Soviet *Socialist* Republics!


----------



## TVRM610

Devils Advocate... You are not bursting my bubble. I look at the reality that Amtrak is adding routes, improving speeds, ordering new equipment, and setting ridership records every year.


----------



## SarahZ

crescent2 said:


> And don't forget, young people get old! There will always be old people and young people (hopefully, anyway).





battalion51 said:


> I think that's a statement on more of the "general" dynamics than anything else. The average sleeping car passenger is typically going to have more expendable cash than the average coach passenger, and the older generation tends to have more expendable cash than the younger generation. You can usually put it in terms of a sleeping car passenger is there for the journey whereas a coach passenger is there for the transportation. Not to say the reverse is never true, but in broad strokes its a decent assessment IMHO.


Ding ding ding. Spot on, my friends.

B and I traveled in Coach while visiting each other because he was unemployed and I was paying off my debt. Now that we live together, have no debt, and he is gainfully employed (double-income, no kids, woot woot!), we can hang out in the sleepers with the bourgeoisie. 

That said, if sleepers are mid/high-bucket, we say, "Eff that noise," and hang out in Coach with the majority. ^_^


----------



## AmtrakWPK

Going by train is not necessarily that much slower than by air. If you mention "it's only a two hour flight", that would be fine except you didn't count the two or three hours you have to be in the terminal in advance of your flight, going through long lines of security (everything but a colonoscopy, which will eventually probably occur to Homeland Security). And then there are the parking fees. If your trip is a long one, your parking fees can exceed the price you paid for your tickets, includng the money you doled out for baggage, a larger seat, or whatever, or you used one of the more outlying parking companies that don't charge as much but take a lot longer to process you in and then you wait for a shuttle bus. If you figure all THAT time into the equation, your two hour flight is now six or seven or even eight hours (mostly of frustration before and after your sardine-can flight) unless you live close to the airport and your final destination is close to the airport.The travel byair has gone from being a bad trip to the dentist to the prep for a colonoscopy; A royal pain in the rump. Here, the WPK station is only 10-15 minutes from our house, has free parking, even for long trips, and you park you car only 50-75 feet from where you will get on the train. And no security hassles to speak of. And SOOOOO much more comfortable than anything but a privateSuite on an A-380.


----------



## AmtrakWPK

Devil's Advocate said:


> Baby boomers are not only creating the largest retirement wave we've ever seen, they're also going to be the last generation to retire with anything resembling a traditional pension or 100% of their Social Security payout. All signs are pointing to a unique one-off retirement bubble that is unlikely to be repeated for several generations to come, if ever. Generation X and Y are going to be working much later into life in return for much less purchasing power than those who came before us. Sorry to burst your bubble, but some things really do change from generation to generation.


But this is NOT the fault of the "baby boomers". The blame falls squarely on Congress. They set up a "Trust Fund" to receive the taxes which we working folks paid in every year. Then they started, and continued to raid that Trust Fund for whatever they wanted to, basically leaving IOUs. Now that money is no longer there and we're trillion$ in debt.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

the_traveler said:


> I don't want to get political, but...


Your random political diatribe doesn't seem to be based on anything in particular, doesn't bring any new information to the discussion, and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Amtrak.



Sorcha said:


> B and I traveled in Coach while visiting each other because he was unemployed and I was paying off my debt. Now that we live together, have no debt, and he is gainfully employed (double-income, no kids, woot woot!), we can hang out in the sleepers with the bourgeoisie.


That's great news. Now consider for a moment how having zero debt is going to pay for your retirement. It's a harsh world out there and it's not getting any easier.


----------



## SarahZ

I'm not sure I understand you. By getting out of debt, we've _ensured_ we can save for our retirement. All of the money that we used to get out of debt is now going into our 401Ks, mutual funds, CDs, and savings.

We "splurge" once or twice per year by purchasing a roomette. But, as I said, if the roomette is high-bucket, we travel in Coach.

I think we're doing okay and making smart decisions.


----------



## AlanB

VentureForth said:


> But I doubt that the schedule will change much, if at all. Amtrak likes to be on time, even if it means upping the padding.


Yes, Amtrak likes to be on time. But they most certainly don't like adding padding. A dozen years or so ago when Amtrak agreed to add 10.5 hours of padding to the Full Sunset Limited, they didn't want to do that. They went to freight RR's to find out how to fix things and be more ontime. The RR's assured them that the answer was to give them more time to get the train over the road. So CSX got 2.5 hours and UP got 8 hours.

And both RR's promptly broke that agreement and the trains continued to run very late. Now in UP's defense, this was during their meltdown and their freight was just as badly delayed as Amtrak. But CSX really had no excuse, they just used the extra time to squeeze more of their own trains through.


----------



## crescent2

Sorcha, keep it up! My children are also actively trying to prepare for their future retirements, and I'm trying to hang on to as much of my nest egg as I reasonably can in hope of passing some of it on to help with their retirements. Except for public workers (such as teachers--thank goodness for the teacher retirement system, in my case), most defined benefit plans have gone away, and SS is on a path to future insolvency. However, as you have shown, future retirees are not totally helpless. Now is the time to start saving for your retirement years. I and many other of today's retirees started saving years ago.

Of course, if the entire US economy tanks, which is unfortunately not a completely insane thought, we're all sunk. I try to refrain from political statements on this forum, but we simply must get the national debt under control. It Is truly scary. As most probably do, I have my own list of where to start, but we'll not go there. For purposes of AU, Amtrak is not at the top of my list. 

On another note: No one burst my bubble. I was simply making the point that "the older people" as a group don't disappear; younger ones grow old to take their place. Whether future retirees have disposable income depends upon many things (see above).

And while my political side is showing: I totally agree that government's "management"--or lack thereof, is to blame for the SS mess. I believe it was during Johnson's term that the SS fund was raided to spend in the general budget, something that corporations are, correctly, not allowed to do. And it's continued ever since. SS benefits are a debt the treasury owes, just like other debt, imho. They took our/your payments (and spent them on other things) and they owe us/you benefits. It's not the fault of the current and previous SS beneficiaries, so no guilt trip for me. SS is, and has been for a number of years, totally mismanaged by both political parties. *steps off soapbox*


----------



## crescent2

....and that's why Amtrak trains have to be so slow. LOL

We do wander OT here.


----------



## SarahZ

Yeah, we aren't counting on SS at all. Most of my generation is fully aware SS will probably be long gone by the time we retire.


----------



## jebr

AmtrakWPK said:


> Going by train is not necessarily that much slower than by air. If you mention "it's only a two hour flight", that would be fine except you didn't count the two or three hours you have to be in the terminal in advance of your flight, going through long lines of security (everything but a colonoscopy, which will eventually probably occur to Homeland Security). And then there are the parking fees. If your trip is a long one, your parking fees can exceed the price you paid for your tickets, includng the money you doled out for baggage, a larger seat, or whatever, or you used one of the more outlying parking companies that don't charge as much but take a lot longer to process you in and then you wait for a shuttle bus. If you figure all THAT time into the equation, your two hour flight is now six or seven or even eight hours (mostly of frustration before and after your sardine-can flight) unless you live close to the airport and your final destination is close to the airport.The travel byair has gone from being a bad trip to the dentist to the prep for a colonoscopy; A royal pain in the rump. Here, the WPK station is only 10-15 minutes from our house, has free parking, even for long trips, and you park you car only 50-75 feet from where you will get on the train. And no security hassles to speak of. And SOOOOO much more comfortable than anything but a privateSuite on an A-380.


To be fair, most places that are a two-hour direct flight would take close to a day to take the train to, if the train goes there at all. Even with all of the hubbub of security, parking, etc. for the train, longer distances still give airlines a huge time advantage.

As but one example, DEN to BOI takes 24 hours by train/bus, but only 2 hours by flight (one of the two legs for my flight to BOI later this year.) Assuming that this time constraint generally holds true (not unreasonable out west), I'd be looking at an extra hour to get to the parking for the airport vs. the train, an extra two hours to get to the airport and get through security (since Amtrak recommends a half-hour and the recommended time for the airport is two hours, plus transportation to the airport), and maybe an extra 15-30 minutes on the other end (the airport and the bus station in BOI are pretty close), and you're still looking at only 6 hours for a plane vs. 24.5 hours for the train.

(Granted, I'm replacing an MSP experience for getting to the airport, but the timing should still hold true. Timing-wise for travel I'm only using the DEN to BOI leg, as MSP to BOI is an even worse comparison, but also longer than a 2-hour plane ride.)


----------



## DET63

the_traveler said:


> DET63 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WellTrained said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government ownership = socialism. Socialism = the first giant step on the road to communism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WellTrained said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, many people think this way, and it's hard to tell them they're wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't want to get political, but this is totally wrong!
> 
> Socialism and communism are totally unrelated. Many people do not know the difference. Most Americans think Communism and they think the former USSR. It was *NEVER* a Communist country.The name USSR stood for the United Soviet *Socialist* Republics!
Click to expand...

Communism vs. socialism: a distinction without much of a difference:



> The *Communist Party of the Soviet Union* (Russian: Коммунистическая партия Советского Союза, _Kommunisticheskaya partiya Sovetskogo Soyuza_; short: КПСС, _KPSS_) was the only legal, ruling political party in the Soviet Union and one of the largest communist organizations in the world. It lost its dominance in the wake of the failure of the 1991 August putsch.


Wikipedia. (Make of it what you will.)

But I suppose this is really a topic for another day.


----------



## Nathanael

crescent2 said:


> Sorcha, keep it up! My children are also actively trying to prepare for their future retirements, and I'm trying to hang on to as much of my nest egg as I reasonably can in hope of passing some of it on to help with their retirements. Except for public workers (such as teachers--thank goodness for the teacher retirement system, in my case), most defined benefit plans have gone away, and SS is on a path to future insolvency.


Social Security is completely solvent until, IIRC, 2100 or so.
That's assuming that the rest of the government pays its debts to Social Security...



> I believe it was during Johnson's term that the SS fund was raided to spend in the general budget, something that corporations are, correctly, not allowed to do. And it's continued ever since. SS benefits are a debt the treasury owes, just like other debt, imho. They took our/your payments (and spent them on other things) and they owe us/you benefits.


This is correct. The Social Security surplus was used to hide the very large deficit in the "general fund" budget. That deficit is mostly caused by (1) military spending (roughly $500 billion dollars a year, roughly equal to the sum total of the rest of the word) and (2) tax cuts for rich investors, who now pay income tax at the lowest rates since 1933, and in some ways lower rates than in 1916 (first $30,000 in dividends & capital gains tax-free, 15% maximum rate after that).

Most people don't know these little facts; only people who actually look up the tax code details and look up the budget numbers know them. That's why politicians are able to talk nonsense about Social Security; they rely on people not knowing what the actual drivers of the budget deficit are.

The core problem here is not the "national debt"... the problem is general political failure, as we see with the Senate deciding that it's OK to pass no laws, confirm no appointees, and let any single Senator veto anything with "silent holds".

Anyway, that's one reason I'm glad Amtrak is generating more ticket revenue and getting more state support. The federal government is just getting *unreliable* in recent decades, thanks mostly to the Senate not doing its job. We may be running on continuing resolutions for years to come.


----------



## Nathanael

Ryan said:


> I'm also curious about the average age of the Amtrak passenger - it seems to me that I see just as many young people and families on the train as I do retirees.


A fellow named D.P. Lubic who posts on some other rail-related sites claims that the distribution is bimodal.
In short, people who grew up in roughly the 1950s - 1970s (the era of uncrowded expressways, no-security airplanes, and bankrupt railroads) don't take trains much, while people older and younger than that have a strong preference for trains.


----------



## Ryan

Anecdotally, I would buy that - it roughly mirrors the observation I've made about this forum (and other rail forums). At 33, I'm on the old end of the younger group, then there's a bit of a gap until you get up into the 50+ crowd.

Hopefully that bodes well for rail as the younger group continues to grow in size. The steady trend downward in vehicle miles travelled and increase in Amtrak ridership seem to bear that out.


----------



## Dan O

Sorcha said:


> Yeah, we aren't counting on SS at all. Most of my generation is fully aware SS will probably be long gone by the time we retire.


You may not be counting on it but if you are working and paying into it you are covered for disability and survivor benefits if you have children.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Sorcha said:


> By getting out of debt, we've _ensured_ we can save for our retirement. All of the money that we used to get out of debt is now going into our 401Ks, mutual funds, CDs, and savings. We "splurge" once or twice per year by purchasing a roomette. But, as I said, if the roomette is high-bucket, we travel in Coach. I think we're doing okay and making smart decisions...Yeah, we aren't counting on SS at all. Most of my generation is fully aware SS will probably be long gone by the time we retire.


Have you visited a frank talking financial adviser yet? I found that to be a rather eye-opening experience myself. I thought I was doing great. I've been debt free my entire life. I've also been saving between 10% and 20% of my income over the last decade. That's what everyone had suggested I needed to do. So what exactly did I have to show for it? Well, according to more than one financial adviser, I have now saved roughly 10% of what I would need to retire comfortably in Texas. How nice. Ten years of debt free savings got me 10% of the way there. Now if I can just keep saving for another eighty years I'll be all set. Yes I know about the "miracle" of compound interest. Unfortunately most of your investments will fall under three categories that are all susceptible to losses beyond your control. Those that will eventually lose money to inflation, those that will eventually become caught up in some sort of market bubble, and those that are fed into the wish-washy Wall Street casino that can chew up and spit out your retirement with little or no warning. Retiring comfortably and enjoyably in the post baby boomer era requires a lot more luck than most people seem to realize. So far as I can tell the only way I can pull it off is to retire somewhere else entirely. And, to be perfectly frank, that probably suits me just fine. Having seen what retirement looks like here in the states, even among small time millionaires, I'm not exactly looking forward to it anyhow.



jebr said:


> To be fair, most places that are a two-hour direct flight would take close to a day to take the train to, if the train goes there at all. Even with all of the hubbub of security, parking, etc. for the train, longer distances still give airlines a huge time advantage.


You know it. I know it. Anyone who travels by air knows it. But try saying it here and it's like talking to a brick wall. Oh well such is life I suppose.


----------



## jis

Devil's Advocate said:


> jebr said:
> 
> 
> 
> To be fair, most places that are a two-hour direct flight would take close to a day to take the train to, if the train goes there at all. Even with all of the hubbub of security, parking, etc. for the train, longer distances still give airlines a huge time advantage.
> 
> 
> 
> You know it. I know it. Anyone who travels by air knows it. But try saying it here and it's like talking to a brick wall. Oh well such is life I suppose.
Click to expand...

The general idea that the French had when they put their nationwide HSR plan together was that journey time of 3 hours is the target to shoot for irrespective of whatever speed.

This generally holds good I think, because as long as yous tay within that limit, with properly timed service you can do a day trip without involving hotels and such. As soonas you go beyond that threshold there is an associated total cost of the trip threshold that is crossed because of other ancillary expenses thats tart adding up.

Some examples from my plans in the near future....

1. I have to visit Florida for a family gathering over a weekend. There is no way I can take days off for it. If such a trip is affordable at all it is only possible by air. At least for people like me who has half the family in the New York area and the other half in Florida, this is not such an uncommon scenario.

2. I was looking into a trip to Utica from New York to ride the Adirondack Scenic Railraod, which has a single service departing Utica at 9:30am and returning at 7pm. The only reasonable way to do this is, as it turns out to drive there and back, an under 4 hour drive from my home, even if a nights hotel stay is added on before the Adirondack Scenic trip. Doing it by train involves two hotel nights and killing an extra day since there are no convenient late evening departures to get back home.

OTOH where there is good service in the 3 to 4 hour journey time range, even in spite of the somewhat steep Amtrak fares, it wins out over air or bus for my purposes.

This business about using trains for overnight business trips might work in some small niche markets provided rail sleeper fares can be kept competitive with hotel charges. But I don't believe there is a huge opportunity there anymore, at least in the environment that we have in the US at present. yes, the environment could change favoring such again. but we are not there at present.


----------



## SarahZ

Devil's Advocate said:


> Sorcha said:
> 
> 
> 
> By getting out of debt, we've _ensured_ we can save for our retirement. All of the money that we used to get out of debt is now going into our 401Ks, mutual funds, CDs, and savings. We "splurge" once or twice per year by purchasing a roomette. But, as I said, if the roomette is high-bucket, we travel in Coach. I think we're doing okay and making smart decisions...Yeah, we aren't counting on SS at all. Most of my generation is fully aware SS will probably be long gone by the time we retire.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you visited a frank talking financial adviser yet? I found that to be a rather eye-opening experience myself. I thought I was doing great. I've been debt free my entire life. I've also been saving between 10% and 20% of my income over the last decade. That's what everyone had suggested I needed to do. So what exactly did I have to show for it? Well, according to more than one financial adviser, I have now saved roughly 10% of what I would need to retire comfortably in Texas. How nice. Ten years of debt free savings got me 10% of the way there. Now if I can just keep saving for another eighty years I'll be all set. Yes I know about the "miracle" of compound interest. Unfortunately most of your investments will fall under three categories that are all susceptible to losses beyond your control. Those that will eventually lose money to inflation, those that will eventually become caught up in some sort of market bubble, and those that are fed into the wish-washy Wall Street casino that can chew up and spit out your retirement with little or no warning. Retiring comfortably and enjoyably in the post baby boomer era requires a lot more luck than most people seem to realize. So far as I can tell the only way I can pull it off is to retire somewhere else entirely. And, to be perfectly frank, that probably suits me just fine. Having seen what retirement looks like here in the states, even among small time millionaires, I'm not exactly looking forward to it anyhow.
Click to expand...

I do worry about this, but short of stuffing money into a mattress (  ), what are my other options? A giant safe behind a painting? Ooohhh... that could be cool.


----------



## jebr

jis said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jebr said:
> 
> 
> 
> To be fair, most places that are a two-hour direct flight would take close to a day to take the train to, if the train goes there at all. Even with all of the hubbub of security, parking, etc. for the train, longer distances still give airlines a huge time advantage.
> 
> 
> 
> You know it. I know it. Anyone who travels by air knows it. But try saying it here and it's like talking to a brick wall. Oh well such is life I suppose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The general idea that the French had when they put their nationwide HSR plan together was that journey time of 3 hours is the target to shoot for irrespective of whatever speed.
> 
> This generally holds good I think, because as long as yous tay within that limit, with properly timed service you can do a day trip without involving hotels and such. As soonas you go beyond that threshold there is an associated total cost of the trip threshold that is crossed because of other ancillary expenses thats tart adding up.
> 
> [...]
> 
> This business about using trains for overnight business trips might work in some small niche markets provided rail sleeper fares can be kept competitive with hotel charges. But I don't believe there is a huge opportunity there anymore, at least in the environment that we have in the US at present. yes, the environment could change favoring such again. but we are not there at present.
Click to expand...

The problem with "shooting" for 3-4 hour time slots is that you're looking, basically, at having regional transportation. Unless some technology comes out that does magic, there won't be any way to create a nationwide network where we can get from almost any location to almost any other location in 3-4 hours.

France is a bit smaller than Texas, which is just one of 50 states. Overall, France is only about 7% of the size of the United States. While Amtrak should work to create strong regional networks, we also need to recognize that even the Chicago to New York market won't have a 3-4 hour time period. Put that in a 10-hour time slot, downtown to downtown, and an overnight train could work wonders (assuming it's priced around the cost of a hotel + coach airfare.)

Do we need a stronger regional network? Yes. But quite a few of those are already being studied and are on the docket, and it's in regional service. Anything longer than 400 or so miles (unless you're running non-stop, that's about as feasible as you can get for a 3-4 hour time period with today's technology) will either need to fall in the "overnight" territory, will need to serve intermediate markets well without caring about endpoint business beyond that 3-4 hour (or 10ish hour for sleepers, but it'd have to hone in on that 10 hour mark pretty reliably - eight hours may be the shortest you could go and still attract a range of business customers) mark, or serve markets that airlines just can't cover.

Frankly, I'd like to seed rail as an integral part of a "spoke and hub" model for transportation. Road infrastructure (with buses) for short distances (under 200 miles when capacity walls aren't being reached,) trains for mid-range (200-400 mile or where capacity is an issue,) and airlines for longer-range. No more of these small airports with subsidies - bus or train routes should be subsidized instead. They offer more options for more people.

But rail cannot serve extremely long distances (over 400 miles, assuming you can do that in 4-6 hours) well in terms of speed, especially when competing against the airplane. That's not what it was made for.


----------



## George Harris

Most passengers do not ride end to end. The question is not whether the train runs more than 3 hours end to end, but if it strings together enough places that are 3 hours or closer in time to each other that you get numerous overlapping rides, and there are plenty of people out there that will take trips of over 3 hours by train.


----------



## eric

Just to chime in... It takes 13 hours to take the train from Cleveland to DC...and roughly 6 hours to drive. 13 hours for 372 miles...28 MPH average... There may be a myriad of reasons WHY, but it's still ridiculously slow.


----------



## afigg

eric said:


> Just to chime in... It takes 13 hours to take the train from Cleveland to DC...and roughly 6 hours to drive. 13 hours for 372 miles...28 MPH average... There may be a myriad of reasons WHY, but it's still ridiculously slow.


While the WAS to CLE route is slow, it is not quite 13 hours slow. The current Capitol Limited schedule is 10 hours 48 minutes WAS to CLE and 11 hours 16 minutes CLE to WAS.


----------



## dlagrua

Why do Amtrak trains have to be so slow?

Ans: Because the American people want it this way.  In the 1950's and 1960's Americans abandoned the rails big time. This caused all the great railroads to close or go out of the passenger business. Government had to step in, otherwise we would have nothing.

Today passenger rail has made somewhat of a comeback and presently 37 million people utilize it. That's still only 10% of airlines passengers. Now if Amtrak was able to get even a 30% of the transportation passenger business, you would see positive changes. It probably won't happen until we get high speed rail but don't hold your breath.


----------



## gmushial

dlagrua said:


> Why do Amtrak trains have to be so slow?
> Ans: Because the American people want it this way. In the 1950's and 1960's Americans abandoned the rails big time. This caused all the great railroads to close or go out of the passenger business. Government had to step in, otherwise we would have nothing.
> 
> Today passenger rail has made somewhat of a comeback and presently 37 million people utilize it. That's still only 10% of airlines passengers. Now if Amtrak was able to get even a 30% of the transportation passenger business, you would see positive changes. It probably won't happen until we get high speed rail but don't hold your breath.


Though one has to wonder: given the cost per passenger mile and cost per mile, if the HSR money wouldn't be better used on 80mph class trains and infrastructure. HSR has a glamor appeal, but given how few dollars are available for rail service in total... HSR will benefit few at great cost, and probably given the politics of congress, will be an excuse to reduce existing service. I suspect that if half the monies that will be sunk into HSR were spent on the existing system if one wouldn't engender and augment more of a rail culture in this country. I still suspect that the biggest change which needs to happen is to get the 98% of the population which has never ridden a train to start thinking of trains as a possible/viable mode of transportation. After that then everything is possible. Conversely, until then I see any new services going underutilized.


----------



## jis

As long as there are viable alternatives around that are faster LD trains will never gain acceptance as a viable alternative for true LD travel. This though should not detract from the fact that LD trains have a second and possibly predominant mode of use, which is as a large number of overlapping short to medium corridor service. Providing a connected network that allows more short to medium distance viable O/D pairs will help more than worrying about truly LD pairs.

The reason that HSR seems attractive to those who want the system to be as self sustaining as possible is that HSR service is capable of commanding adequate revenue streams to get them over that hump. There are no known non-HSR service that just by themselves get anywhere near over that hump. The only exception are in extremely dense suburban and exurban services. but those will do no good to help LD services that much, nor can be provided dependably as an adjunct to an LD train.

So the issue is more complex than just tossing a bunch of money at HSR or at non-HSR. There needs to be more system thinking designing an overall system with right technologies for the right segments before tossing money in random directions. In the US there is a huge reluctance to doing anything of the sort. So I suspect at least for the time being we will just toss random money at random projects and hope something sticks.


----------



## gmushial

No question about your last paragraph - demonstrably true... but my concern is: given finite resources, where might they be spent most effectively to keep rail travel alive until the populous wakes up and demands HSR. Currently it seems to be an enlightened few that are trying "to do the masses a favor," they they don't understand nor appreciate such yet. My fear is that HSR becomes a blackhole which absorbs the lion's share of the money and give the (self-serving/retrograde) congressthingies an excuse to show how this whole dance is a boondoggle and defund it entirely.

My fear with the "self-sustaining" nature of HSR, is that they are projections, and projections by those that wish it to work... I can think of a gazillion projects where the preconstruction projections said one thing, yet the after-construction reality says something entirely different. [eg, the Kearney Nebraska "arch"]... combined with my fear that rail-travel is that close to being a has-been in this country, that there is no longer any room for an ooops/miscalculation. I really don't wish to be part of the last generation for which rail travel was a reality and not something that one reads of in the history books.... there are simply too many self-serving forces wishing that it would go away, and will do whatever is necessary to hasten such.


----------



## Sean Matthews

Amtrak has too many stops and they use rails that the freight companies use it's pretty annoying for example I was taking a sleeper car from Rochester ny to Chicago the train was supposed to arrive in Rochester at 11 pm but it arrived at 1 am due to freight traffic then on the way to Chicago it was delayed again due to freight congestion then when we were closer to Chicago we had to stop in Toledo Ohio then somewhere in Indiana and then finally Chicago why couldn't they just not stop there and make it easier for most passengers.amtrak sometimes gets sewed for ridiculous reasons for example they wonce got sewed for putting a fence by their tracks.AMTRACK Please have rail lines dedicated to a passenger service so their is not any congestion


----------



## zephyr17

Sean Matthews said:


> Amtrak has too many stops and they use rails that the freight companies use it's pretty annoying for example I was taking a sleeper car from Rochester ny to Chicago the train was supposed to arrive in Rochester at 11 pm but it arrived at 1 am due to freight traffic then on the way to Chicago it was delayed again due to freight congestion then when we were closer to Chicago we had to stop in Toledo Ohio then somewhere in Indiana and then finally Chicago why couldn't they just not stop there and make it easier for most passengers.amtrak sometimes gets sewed for ridiculous reasons for example they wonce got sewed for putting a fence by their tracks.AMTRACK Please have rail lines dedicated to a passenger service so their is not any congestion


And who pays billions for dedicated ROWs?


----------



## AmtrakBlue

zephyr17 said:


> Sean Matthews said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak has too many stops and they use rails that the freight companies use it's pretty annoying for example I was taking a sleeper car from Rochester ny to Chicago the train was supposed to arrive in Rochester at 11 pm but it arrived at 1 am due to freight traffic then on the way to Chicago it was delayed again due to freight congestion then when we were closer to Chicago we had to stop in Toledo Ohio then somewhere in Indiana and then finally Chicago why couldn't they just not stop there and make it easier for most passengers.amtrak sometimes gets sewed for ridiculous reasons for example they wonce got sewed for putting a fence by their tracks.AMTRACK Please have rail lines dedicated to a passenger service so their is not any congestion
> 
> 
> 
> And who pays billions for dedicated ROWs?
Click to expand...

And why shouldn't people in Ohio & Indiana be able to take the train?Sean, you sound like you're from the ME! Generation.

BTW, they stop in Toledo for a crew change (engineer/conductor).


----------



## Guest

zephyr17 said:


> Sean Matthews said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak has too many stops and they use rails that the freight companies use it's pretty annoying for example I was taking a sleeper car from Rochester ny to Chicago the train was supposed to arrive in Rochester at 11 pm but it arrived at 1 am due to freight traffic then on the way to Chicago it was delayed again due to freight congestion then when we were closer to Chicago we had to stop in Toledo Ohio then somewhere in Indiana and then finally Chicago why couldn't they just not stop there and make it easier for most passengers.amtrak sometimes gets sewed for ridiculous reasons for example they wonce got sewed for putting a fence by their tracks.AMTRACK Please have rail lines dedicated to a passenger service so their is not any congestion
> 
> 
> 
> And who pays billions for dedicated ROWs?
Click to expand...

third world countries I find it quite saddening that third world countries have dedicated rail lines but America the richest and most powerful nation on earth does not c'mon


----------



## Sean Matthews

AmtrakBlue said:


> zephyr17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sean Matthews said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak has too many stops and they use rails that the freight companies use it's pretty annoying for example I was taking a sleeper car from Rochester ny to Chicago the train was supposed to arrive in Rochester at 11 pm but it arrived at 1 am due to freight traffic then on the way to Chicago it was delayed again due to freight congestion then when we were closer to Chicago we had to stop in Toledo Ohio then somewhere in Indiana and then finally Chicago why couldn't they just not stop there and make it easier for most passengers.amtrak sometimes gets sewed for ridiculous reasons for example they wonce got sewed for putting a fence by their tracks.AMTRACK Please have rail lines dedicated to a passenger service so their is not any congestion
> 
> 
> 
> And who pays billions for dedicated ROWs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And why shouldn't people in Ohio & Indiana be able to take the train?Sean, you sound like you're from the ME! Generation.
> 
> BTW, they stop in Toledo for a crew change (engineer/conductor).
Click to expand...

I'm not from that generation I'm almost 12 if I was obsessed with myself i would say you better get to Chicago fast or I'll kick your butts as a corporation that loses a ton of money every year and does not have to worry because of being owned by the government i think you should have better services because you do not have to worry about profitability I did not know that they stopped in Toledo for a crew change your saying that I want to deny service to ohio you stop in Cleveland I was against stopping in Toledo I do not know why you would stop in an unknown place in Indiana it was just a small suburb city near Lake Michigan


----------



## jebr

First, use punctuation. Please.

Second, why not just run the train direct from New York City to Chicago? Get rid of all the stops along the way...they're all less populated anyways.

To answer my rhetorical question: because people use these stops. Very few people on Amtrak go from endpoint to endpoint. Your trip is proof of that. The penalty for stopping is rather minimal (maybe five minutes.) In fact, part of the reason they stop every hour or so is to lower the average speed; since they share it with freight trains, it's easier to keep the trains running about the same speed as the fastest freight trains. Since a passenger train can go a bit faster, the stops every hour or so basically allow Amtrak to build back its buffer from the slower freight trains. Not to mention Amtrak is there to serve all Americans (or as many as it reasonably can.) Stopping in smaller communities is a core part of that mission.


----------



## Ryan

Guest said:


> third world countries I find it quite saddening that third world countries have dedicated rail lines


Name one.


----------



## SarahZ

Sean Matthews said:


> AmtrakBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zephyr17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sean Matthews said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak has too many stops and they use rails that the freight companies use it's pretty annoying for example I was taking a sleeper car from Rochester ny to Chicago the train was supposed to arrive in Rochester at 11 pm but it arrived at 1 am due to freight traffic then on the way to Chicago it was delayed again due to freight congestion then when we were closer to Chicago we had to stop in Toledo Ohio then somewhere in Indiana and then finally Chicago why couldn't they just not stop there and make it easier for most passengers.amtrak sometimes gets sewed for ridiculous reasons for example they wonce got sewed for putting a fence by their tracks.AMTRACK Please have rail lines dedicated to a passenger service so their is not any congestion
> 
> 
> 
> And who pays billions for dedicated ROWs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And why shouldn't people in Ohio & Indiana be able to take the train?Sean, you sound like you're from the ME! Generation.
> 
> BTW, they stop in Toledo for a crew change (engineer/conductor).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not from that generation I'm almost 12 if I was obsessed with myself i would say you better get to Chicago fast or I'll kick your butts as a corporation that loses a ton of money every year and does not have to worry because of being owned by the government i think you should have better services because you do not have to worry about profitability I did not know that they stopped in Toledo for a crew change your saying that I want to deny service to ohio you stop in Cleveland I was against stopping in Toledo *I do not know why you would stop in an unknown place in Indiana it was just a small suburb city near Lake Michigan*
Click to expand...

Because people live there and deserve service.

Also, Toledo is the pick-up point for people who live in the metro Detroit area, as the LakeShore Limited doesn't run through Michigan.


----------



## the_traveler

*Moderator's Note*

I kindly request that members be civil and understanding to all posters - especially guests.

Sean - Please note that we (Amtrak Unlimited) are not affiliated with Amtrak in any way, except that we are also riders of Amtrak and like to talk about trains. Any concerns you have should be addressed to Amtrak directly. We at AU have no say with what Amtrak or any other company does or does not do.

I apologize to you for all members of AU!


----------



## neutralist

Guest posting should be disabled.


----------



## Slasharoo

guest posting should be encouraged, and gently corrected. JMO


----------



## Alice

Slasharoo said:


> guest posting should be encouraged, and gently corrected. JMO


+1


----------



## oldtimer

I agree with Slasharoo's opinion about guest posting. Sometimes guests can add to your knowledge, but other times they are of little use. I think that allowing guests to post with moderation.

PS the only guest currently posting that I see of no use here, He shall remain unidentified, but, some posters he quacks up.


----------



## jis

I am still trying to figure out which third world country has tracks dedicated to passenger service outside of suburban service around big cities. AFAICT only first and second world countries, at least some of them has such, and none of those are really non-HSR LD routes. So until someone comes up with specific examples I suppose it is safe to treat the comment about "dedicated tracks in third world countries" as a hyperbolic flourish. 

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## Railroad Bill

Sean says he is only 12 years old. And he is interested in trains.. Let's see if we can help educate him on how Amtrak works  and maybe he will keep riding.. 

So Sean, I get on in Cleveland because it is the closest station to my home. It has a very good ridership, at least 25-30 people board each day/train. I would agree that perhaps having a station in Elyria and Sandusky is overdoing it a bit for Ohio but there are quite a few people who board in Sandusky, especially in the summer months when Cedar Point is open. As mentioned, the stop in Toledo is necessary for many reasons, (crew changes, passengers from Michigan, etc). The stop in Indiana at Waterloo serves a larger population in northern Indiana (Fort Wayne especially) who do not have viable train service. One could probably make an argument that having stops in Elkhart and South Bend is a bit redundant, but Notre Dame fans would disagree.  . So there is some information to take with you about the operation of the Lake Shore Ltd that you ride. Best wishes


----------



## George Harris

First, a stop "in the middle of nowhere" does not really add that much time to a train's running time. Both by observation and by calculation on a 79 mph railroad a stop adds just about exactly 3 minutes 00 seconds plus dwell time to a passenger train's running time. The actual time does vary somewhat on power to weight ratio, but if you use 3 minutes in your analysis the difference between calculation and reality will be measured in seconds, usually single digits of those.

Second, financial and political reality says were are not going to spend megabucks to permit faster run times. As part of this, for much of the eastern US permitting faster run times requires improved alignment, and anybody who deals with consturction of ANYTHING on a new location knows how difficult it is to even be allowed to do so even if you have the money in hand.

There are more points, but at this time I must start working on the things I am paid to do.


----------



## George Harris

Alice said:


> Slasharoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> guest posting should be encouraged, and gently corrected. JMO
> 
> 
> 
> +1
Click to expand...

+1 more


----------



## Long Train Runnin'

RyanS said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> 
> third world countries I find it quite saddening that third world countries have dedicated rail lines
> 
> 
> 
> Name one.
Click to expand...

Laos has a dedicated passenger rail line that is 3.5km long and that's the only rail link in the entire country. Hardly counts, but it is a data point. Although I understand that they are working on adding freight service.


----------



## George Harris

Long Train Runnin' said:


> RyanS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guest said:
> 
> 
> 
> third world countries I find it quite saddening that third world countries have dedicated rail lines
> 
> 
> 
> Name one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Laos has a dedicated passenger rail line that is 3.5km long and that's the only rail link in the entire country. Hardly counts, but it is a data point. Although I understand that they are working on adding freight service.
Click to expand...

But it is definitely not high speed.


----------



## gmushial

George Harris said:


> First, a stop "in the middle of nowhere" does not really add that much time to a train's running time. Both by observation and by calculation on a 79 mph railroad a stop adds just about exactly 3 minutes 00 seconds plus dwell time to a passenger train's running time. The actual time does vary somewhat on power to weight ratio, but if you use 3 minutes in your analysis the difference between calculation and reality will be measured in seconds, usually single digits of those.
> 
> Second, financial and political reality says were are not going to spend megabucks to permit faster run times. As part of this, for much of the eastern US permitting faster run times requires improved alignment, and anybody who deals with consturction of ANYTHING on a new location knows how difficult it is to even be allowed to do so even if you have the money in hand.
> 
> There are more points, but at this time I must start working on the things I am paid to do.


Suspect also at some point, given the politics and government beholden to corporate interests: making trains faster and potentially competing with airlines, it wouldn't be long before we heard that Washington was competing with private business.


----------



## Long Train Runnin'

George Harris said:


> Long Train Runnin' said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RyanS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guest said:
> 
> 
> 
> third world countries I find it quite saddening that third world countries have dedicated rail lines
> 
> 
> 
> Name one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Laos has a dedicated passenger rail line that is 3.5km long and that's the only rail link in the entire country. Hardly counts, but it is a data point. Although I understand that they are working on adding freight service.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But it is definitely not high speed.
Click to expand...

Definitely not the main road to the station isn't even paved, so there is some serious room for improvement in the infrastructure.


----------



## VentureForth

RyanS said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> 
> third world countries I find it quite saddening that third world countries have dedicated rail lines
> 
> 
> 
> Name one.
Click to expand...

China. Never mind the fact that there are pockets of high wealth, the majority of the country is still in abject poverty.


----------



## Ryan

China is not a third world country.


----------



## George Harris

RyanS said:


> China is not a third world country.


Even if considered a "third world" country, and there is a huge gap between urban normal and rural normal, the thing most often ignored is that China has been building railroads of the normal type at a fairly high rate for some 50 plus years. The main thing that has led to building the high speed lines at the rate they have is primarily a change in focus of the type of railroads being built more than a change in the rate of building of railroads in total. It need also be mentioned that some of the railroads being labeled as high speed lines in the foreign press really are not. Primary example being the line having the collision some time back. Although labeled as being on their high speed railroad system, it really was not. The line although fairly new had been built to carry traffic of all types. It simply carried high speed trains as part of its traffic.


----------



## George Harris

gmushial said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, a stop "in the middle of nowhere" does not really add that much time to a train's running time. Both by observation and by calculation on a 79 mph railroad a stop adds just about exactly 3 minutes 00 seconds plus dwell time to a passenger train's running time. The actual time does vary somewhat on power to weight ratio, but if you use 3 minutes in your analysis the difference between calculation and reality will be measured in seconds, usually single digits of those.
> 
> Second, financial and political reality says were are not going to spend megabucks to permit faster run times. As part of this, for much of the eastern US permitting faster run times requires improved alignment, and anybody who deals with consturction of ANYTHING on a new location knows how difficult it is to even be allowed to do so even if you have the money in hand.
> 
> There are more points, but at this time I must start working on the things I am paid to do.
> 
> 
> 
> Suspect also at some point, given the politics and government beholden to corporate interests: making trains faster and potentially competing with airlines, it wouldn't be long before we heard that Washington was competing with private business.
Click to expand...

No matter what we do, a high speed railroad is not going to compete with any airline on run time for distances of over around 500 miles. Beyond that the competiton is driving time. Unless they are using puppets the silence from the airlines on the Cailf HS is thundering. I would suspect that they have figured out that cutting each other's throats for the distances involved and taking up gate space that could be used for longer and more prifitable flights is a business they would want to leave, but meanwhile they stay in it primarily for the sake of connecting passengers that would be lost to any airline that unilaterally pulled out of the rat race.


----------



## jis

I agree with George. If the Caliornia HSR system provides good connectivity to SFO and LAX similar to what exists say to the NEC at EWR, Airlines like United would probably jump on board with code share more completely. If the trains are able to carry checked baggage they'd do so even more enthusiastically since that would make transfers to flights that much more transparent. One of the deterrents to broader use of code share out of EWR and potentially even BWI has been the lack of checked baggage service on the NEC, which makes it difficult for airlines to use the NEC as a transparent means for connecting to their international and transcontinental flights where people tend to have checked baggage. They figure if they have to fly little planes anyway to provide connectivity through their hub, then why bother with code share on rail. However, Amtrak is so strapped for resources that they simply don't have the wherewithal to address that issue, and are already overwhelmed with demand anyway.

In the absence of transparent transfers there will still be some codeshares, but they will be more local in nature like the ones on the NEC - EWR to STM, PHL and NHV AFAIR.


----------

