# Do we need "Long Distance " trains?



## caravanman

Is it possible, given the distances between larger cities, to devise a train system something like this... Folk get on one train in the morning, travel all day, with appropriate intermediate station stops, and arrive somewhere to spend the night in a hotel. The train set can return to the original city next day providing the oposite service.
The passenger boards another train next morning, and travels onward again, repeating untill arriving at their destination.
No need for elaborate meal arrangements, nor sleeping cars...
Overall, the individal's journey will take longer, as one is not travelling at night, but it seems to offer a sensible alternative to silly sleeper car prices, and yeuky food? Are city pairs just too near or too far apart to make this workable?


----------



## railiner

caravanman said:


> Is it possible, given the distances between larger cities, to devise a train system something like this... Folk get on one train in the morning, travel all day, with appropriate intermediate station stops, and arrive somewhere to spend the night in a hotel. The train set can return to the original city next day providing the oposite service.
> The passenger boards another train next morning, and travels onward again, repeating untill arriving at their destination.
> No need for elaborate meal arrangements, nor sleeping cars...
> Overall, the individal's journey will take longer, as one is not travelling at night, but it seems to offer a sensible alternative to silly sleeper car prices, and yeuky food? Are city pairs just too near or too far apart to make this workable?


This is somewhat like the model that Rocky Mountaineer follows. Works fine for a tourist train, but it would not work too well for those wanting to go longer distances, or worse, those wanting to go a shorter distance, but accross the layover point(s) from one segment to another. Would make the trip much longer, and costlier for those...
And not offering decent meals on board, would not make it especially attractive to tourists, either....


----------



## Trogdor

It would seem that if you are traveling all day, you would need food. Traveling during the night would favor sleepers but could do without food. The two aren’t really linked, except in how Amtrak does it.

One thing this arrangement doesn’t do is account for short-distance passengers that are traveling through an arbitrary break point. If the Empire Builder hypothetically overnighted in Minneapolis, then someone traveling from Red Wing to St. Cloud couldn’t use it without turning a 2 hour trip into a 12 hour trip.


----------



## jiml

VIA does this with the Skeena train between Jasper, AB and Prince Rupert, BC. While primarily a tourist operation (with corresponding service) during peak season, it does provide regional transportation the rest of the year and the route involves an overnight break at passengers' expense mid-way. They once studied doing this with some eastern long-distance routes as well. 

There is certainly precedent for this in Europe and there are a few Amtrak routes that it might work on, although the suggestion might not be popular around here.


----------



## me_little_me

And for through travelers, the loss of the time the present train gains them because it continues while they sleep makes it less advantageous vs a car.

Also, not everyone is enamored of lots of days on a train. Travelers who dislike or can't travel by bus, car or air (vs railfans) are interested in getting places not just seeing scenery or racking up train miles.

The suggestion about replacing LD with intercity pairs sounds like Anderson's ideas.

On the other hand, long distance trains AUGMENTED by intercity daylight trains would be a benefit especially on routes that could justify multiple trains or for sections that are transversed only at night or trains going to "destination" cities. So, e.g., as I mentioned in another thread, a morning train from Atlanta to say, Raleigh, would allow passengers boarding/disembarking from cities between to have daytime, not just a middle-of-the-night transportation. This would be even more critical if large cities such as Cincinnati had daytime service to the Chicago hub as well as being a hub itself for other cities along the Cardinal route that only have late-night service now.


----------



## jis

caravanman said:


> Is it possible, given the distances between larger cities, to devise a train system something like this... Folk get on one train in the morning, travel all day, with appropriate intermediate station stops, and arrive somewhere to spend the night in a hotel. The train set can return to the original city next day providing the oposite service.


This would definitely move us closer to the wagon stages of the horse and buggy days.


----------



## caravanman

I don't suggest that there be no catering onboard the train, but a simple catering operation on a daytime train seems much easier to achieve well. rather than the current Amtrak catering fiasco.
Do folk who travel very long distances (more than 12 hours aboard) by train expect a fast service? I am not sure they do. 
There is never going to be one ideal solution, but trains arriving and departing only in the middle of the night is hardly good.
I am a fan of the long distance trains, just feel than the way the USA views train travel is a bit old fashioned. 
I can see that halting overnight and expecting folk to go to a hotel would not be great for bargain basement travellers like myself who try to manage to sleep in the cheap coach seats overnight! 
So, my question remains... Are there sensible city pairs that would facilitate such an arrangement, or are distances too awkward?


----------



## jis

caravanman said:


> So, my question remains... Are there sensible city pairs that would facilitate such an arrangement, or are distances too awkward?


You mean city pairs that are currently served by LD trains and not served by a daylight train I suppose? Afterall there is a whole host of Regional trains that are more or less pure daylight running that serve various city pairs already.

I suppose examples that you are looking for would be something like:

Washington DC - Atlanta
Chicago - Denver
Chicago - St. Paul
Chicago - Kansas City (via BNSF Fort Madison)
Chicago - Memphis
New Orleans - Houston
New Orleans - Memphis
Los Angeles - Phoenix/Tucson
Los Angeles - Emeryville (via Coast Line)
Seattle/Portland - Spokane

etc.

My take on this is that all of them are candidates for a second frequency served in daylight rather than cannibalizing the existing LD service.

The US in general needs more train service, not less, or more inconvenient ones.

I think the catering issue is a red herring. Just because you get a sleeping berth or stay on the train overnight, does not mean you have to have a full court Diner service. OTOH just because it is a day train does not mean you must not have a full Diner service. The level of Diner/Cafe service is a decision that is independent of whether the train runs overnight or not.

Afterall the Night Owl AFAIR never had Diner service, and arguably none of the LD trains currently have Diner service. They just have slightly upgraded cafe food for Sleeper passengers. This shows that any level of service that is chosen as the service goal is deliverable, and arguably the current misadventure has failed in its goal miserably, so might as well give it up and make the customers happy.


----------



## MARC Rider

caravanman said:


> Is it possible, given the distances between larger cities, to devise a train system something like this... Folk get on one train in the morning, travel all day, with appropriate intermediate station stops, and arrive somewhere to spend the night in a hotel. The train set can return to the original city next day providing the oposite service.
> The passenger boards another train next morning, and travels onward again, repeating until arriving at their destination.
> No need for elaborate meal arrangements, nor sleeping cars...
> Overall, the individal's journey will take longer, as one is not travelling at night, but it seems to offer a sensible alternative to silly sleeper car prices, and yeuky food? Are city pairs just too near or too far apart to make this workable?


The total travel time would certainly take longer, on the other hand, you'd get to see the entire route in daylight, and it would eliminate serving potentially important station stops at inconvenient hours. (Hello Cleveland! Hello Salt Lake City! Hello San Antonio!) I guess if you were really worried about travel time, you'd be flying, anyway, so maybe it doesn't matter. 

A few practical issues:

How long is the total travel time for each segment? I would supposed you would max it at 12 hours.
What are the break-point cities? Take Washington-Chicago - It's about 11 hours WAS - Cleveland, where I suppose the overnight stop would be, and then from Cleveland, it's about 6-7 hours to Chicago. Do we have people overnight in Chicago, or keep the train going and have the overnight in, say Galesburg? Then, where's the next overnight break? Also, they would need to be selected so as to minimize the number of people who might want to take shorter trips traveling through the overnight stop without having to stay overnight. (Say, someone who wants to travel from Pittsburgh to Toledo, which really should be a day trip.) Obviously, there should be additional trains at different schedules to accommodate such travelers. 
You would want the hotels for the overnighters to be close to the train station to reduce problems of re-assembling people in the morning to catch the onward train. I'm not sure how the Rocky Mountaineer of Skeena do it, but then their overnight stops might be in smaller towns than Cleveland or Chicago.
You also need to make sure that there are decent places to eat at the overnight stops. And on-board, with a 12-hour ride, at least some of the passenger are going to want to have lunch, so some sort of provision needs to be made for that. Of course, just like the current long-distance service, most passengers will be making shorter trips.
You might actually need more equipment to do this, though you would eliminate much of the cost of on-board service. It might work, goven that most passengers on long-distance trains don't travel long distances, but you'd have to select the terminating points carefully.


----------



## jis

Why is it that people who claim to be passenger rail enthusiasts spend such an inordinate amount of time trying to figure out how to make the service worse? Seems like some kind of a Stockholm Syndrome or something, possibly worthy of a learned psychological study.


----------



## Qapla

MARC Rider said:


> I guess if you were really worried about travel time, you'd be flying, anyway



If I want to go to NY from JAX, I can catch the train and ride overnight in a coach seat. I would be on the train (sleeping) while the train takes me to my destination. The trip would be time well spent since I am using my daylight hours for what I want/need to do in NY instead of looking out the window of the train while using the time I had planned to use in NY because the train does not run while I sleep.

So, while travel time is a factor (and there are those of us who do not fly) doing so through the night is a perfectly acceptable use of this travel time so the daylight hours are spent at my destination - not making my trip longer than it has to be and forcing me to rent a room for the night when I can sleep on the train without additional cost.


----------



## Exvalley

This is a horrible idea for travelers that are not end to end travelers.

Let’s say the train schedule requires an overnight in Denver. If I want to go from Fort Morgan to Granby I have to overnight on an otherwise 5.5 hour trip. Hard pass, thank you.

Also, the trend in Europe is for MORE overnight service, not less.


----------



## Mailliw

Another solution to the middle-of-the-night stops would be to add a second frequency to long distance trains offset 6-12 hours.


----------



## Amtrakfflyer

Terrible idea for anything except a land cruise.


----------



## 20th Century Rider

caravanman said:


> Is it possible, given the distances between larger cities, to devise a train system something like this... Folk get on one train in the morning, travel all day, with appropriate intermediate station stops, and arrive somewhere to spend the night in a hotel. The train set can return to the original city next day providing the oposite service.
> The passenger boards another train next morning, and travels onward again, repeating untill arriving at their destination.
> No need for elaborate meal arrangements, nor sleeping cars...
> Overall, the individal's journey will take longer, as one is not travelling at night, but it seems to offer a sensible alternative to silly sleeper car prices, and yeuky food? Are city pairs just too near or too far apart to make this workable?


Canada already has this idea with it's Rocky Pioneer... passengers detrain mid way and stay the night in a hotel. But this is strictly a tourist train and I don't think the idea would go over well in the USA for LD service. Especially when coach passengers can take advantage of stretching out on the larger seats and saving money for an overnight hotel bill.









Canadian Rockies & West Coast


Find the best Banff and Jasper tours with Fresh Tracks Canada. Explore our range of Canadian Rockies tours and train trips.




canadiantrainvacations.com













Riding an Amtrak Train Overnight: Tips for First-Time Rail Travelers


Traveling overnight on an Amtrak train can be an unusual, enjoyable, and even exciting adventure. Hopefully, some of the tips in this article will be helpful if and when you decide to try this unique travel experience.




wanderwisdom.com


----------



## jebr

The biggest problem (as others have stated) is that it causes huge headaches for certain intermediate markets. A lot of passengers don't travel end-to-end, but probably travel through an intermediate market or two. As someone who (before moving) would travel semi-regularly from St. Cloud to Winona, a break in MSP would make that trip unworkable and have pushed me to take the car. LD train service works by having tons of intermediate markets that can be done on the same train, and breaking up that train would sever the practicality of many of those intermediate markets.


----------



## Mailliw

Amtrakfflyer said:


> Terrible idea for anything except a land cruise.


Agreed. Even as a land cruise I would hate the Rocky Mountaineer setup.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

Mailliw said:


> Another solution to the middle-of-the-night stops would be to add a second frequency to long distance trains offset 6-12 hours.



Shhhhh... adding frequency actually causes ridership and profitability to go up. Can’t suggest anything like that around here.


----------



## me_little_me

MARC Rider said:


> You would want the hotels for the overnighters to be close to the train station to reduce problems of re-assembling people in the morning to catch the onward train. I'm not sure how the Rocky Mountaineer of Skeena do it, but then their overnight stops might be in smaller towns than Cleveland or Chicago.
> You also need to make sure that there are decent places to eat at the overnight stops. And on-board, with a 12-hour ride, at least some of the passenger are going to want to have lunch, so some sort of provision needs to be made for that. Of course, just like the current long-distance service, most passengers will be making shorter trips.




No comparison to the Rocky Mountaineer. They sell packages, not transportation so everyone in the same class stays at the same hotel and is transported back and forth to/from the train and those things are included in the package price. Amtrak, as transportation, takes you to the city and you are on your own until the next day's train. Amtrak might offer packages (ala Amtrakvacations.com) that include hotel, etc but that's not their job nor should they be in that business. Leave that to the tourist companies and take a cut of the extra $ if any. For Amtrak passengers, the choice of hotels might be based on price and convenience or might even be just a hostel or overnight with friends.

Lunch and snacks would likely be the least of the food provided or available. Unless Amtrak really can improve on-time performance on freight-owned tracks, even 12 hours can be a big problem. Look at the Crescent as if it were just a daytime train between ATL and NOL (it is a 12 hours daylight train). It is often late so if it is, there has to be sufficient food to provide a light dinner and, since it leaves both ATL and NOL pretty early, it needs to have some sort of breakfast for purchase.

Twelve hour trips can be burdens for families with small children and the non-railfan who thinks of it as transportation, not a land cruise so such trips should be the outer limit. Moreover, such trains should have first class or business class service and comfort for those willing to pay for it.


----------



## Cal

I don't really like the idea, sorry


----------



## sttom

Another reason why this is bad is dealing with starting and ending points. As mentioned, Salt Lake City has really bad arrival times as it is (mostly to maximize day light hours in the Rockies). How would the schedule in Emeryville be changed so that there is a better than dark o’clock arrival in Salt Lake? I’d bet a schedule that would ruin the travel value between the Bay Area and the Sierras more than it already is. And I’m willing to be the value of that connection is worth more than the Reno to Salt Lake part of the route.

Speaking of scheduling the train to maximize the best scenery, who the hell wants to see all of the Midwest corn during the day? Trains in the past were literally scheduled to avoid the corn. A day time connection would be nice, but no one wants to go out of their way to see East Nowhere, Nebraska and it’s mighty fields of corn. No offense to Nebraska.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

sttom said:


> Speaking of scheduling the train to maximize the best scenery, who the hell wants to see all of the Midwest corn during the day?



I loved waking up and seeing the fields of corn in Illinois on the City of New Orleans.

The only time I’ve been tired of scenery on a train is riding the Canadian in the winter when everything is snow. Fields of snow, lakes frozen over and covered in snow. It‘s pretty boring for the first 2 days out of Toronto. Still relaxing though!


----------



## Cal

crescent-zephyr said:


> I loved waking up and seeing the fields of corn in Illinois on the City of New Orleans.
> 
> The only time I’ve been tired of scenery on a train is riding the Canadian in the winter when everything is snow. Fields of snow, lakes frozen over and covered in snow. It‘s pretty boring for the first 2 days out of Toronto. Still relaxing though!


Same! I live in the city, I see city only. I absolutely love seeing the fields!


----------



## Asher

I like to settle in, relax. If I wanted to go on one night stands I’d travel with my son bands. 25 shows in 30 days. No thank you.


----------



## railiner

anumberone said:


> I like to settle in, relax. If I wanted to go on one night stands I’d travel with my son bands. 25 shows in 30 days. No thank you.


Don’t most “bands on the run” (pun intended ), travel overnight on their “entertainer” coaches between gigs?


----------



## caravanman

jis said:


> Why is it that people who claim to be passenger rail enthusiasts spend such an inordinate amount of time trying to figure out how to make the service worse? Seems like some kind of a Stockholm Syndrome or something, possibly worthy of a learned psychological study.


As someone who has enjoyed tens of thousands LD Amtrak miles, I am probably already seen as needing psychiatric help... 
If I travel from Scotland to London, it seems fine to expect to spend the night in London, then board the Eurostar to Paris the next morning. I dont expect a through train. Admittedly, those folk who want to travel from Luton to Gatwick across London will have dozens of other trains to cater for their needs also...


----------



## jiml

caravanman said:


> Admittedly, those folk who want to travel from Luton to Gatwick across London


That's a good example to compare with some of those used to refute the idea. That said, there's no direct way to travel by train from a point on one side of many major North American cities to a point on the other, e.g. Detroit to St. Louis, San Jose to San Diego, Montreal to Windsor, ON, etc.


----------



## jis

jiml said:


> That's a good example to compare with some of those used to refute the idea. That said, there's no direct way to travel by train from a point on one side of many major North American cities to a point on the other, e.g. Detroit to St. Louis, San Jose to San Diego, Montreal to Windsor, ON, etc.


It is one thing that many places don't have cross city service. It is another thing to use those as examples to justify an argument that where such service exists they are unnecessary and therefore should be discontinued.


----------



## Asher

railiner said:


> Don’t most “bands on the run” (pun intended ), travel overnight on their “entertainer” coaches between gigs?



Yeah, a lot do I guess, my kids for the most part have used a large van or sprinter


----------



## jiml

jis said:


> It is one thing that many places don;t have cross city service. It is another thing to use those as examples to justify an argument that where such service exists they are unnecessary and therefore should be discontinued.


And I'm not advocating to discontinue anything, however some of the examples I cited were previously possible and not nearly as abstract as some of those used to justify the status quo.


----------



## jis

jiml said:


> And I'm not advocating to discontinue anything, however some of the examples I cited were previously possible and not nearly as abstract as some of those used to justify the status quo.


So you are quoting examples where things were discontinued and yet you are not advocating discontinuance. So one is left wondering what is the purpose of quoting those examples. Is it just a matter of a set of concrete examples in support of an abstract philosophical position? Or a non-existent position?


----------



## crescent-zephyr

railiner said:


> Don’t most “bands on the run” (pun intended ), travel overnight on their “entertainer” coaches between gigs?



Indeed they do! Best way to travel, yes even better than Amtrak! 



caravanman said:


> As someone who has enjoyed tens of thousands LD Amtrak miles, I am probably already seen as needing psychiatric help...
> If I travel from Scotland to London, it seems fine to expect to spend the night in London, then board the Eurostar to Paris the next morning. I dont expect a through train. Admittedly, those folk who want to travel from Luton to Gatwick across London will have dozens of other trains to cater for their needs also...



But you can take an overnight train from Scotland to London and connect to the Eurostar that morning. No need to overnight in London.


----------



## jebr

jiml said:


> And I'm not advocating to discontinue anything, however some of the examples I cited were previously possible and not nearly as abstract as some of those used to justify the status quo.



And all three of these examples have an option for same-day connections, if so desired - none of these options would force or require an overnight layover, presuming the connecting train is running that day (in the case of the Coast Starlight.)

There's a vast difference between having a train stop in a city for 8-10 hours just to have everything run in daylight, and having connection points where people can transfer between trains same-day, many of which have multiple daily connection options available. Even Chicago is set up for long distance trains to not have overnight layovers between many of the most common city pairs, especially pre-COVID.


----------



## fdaley

Exvalley said:


> This is a horrible idea for travelers that are not end to end travelers.



And it's a horrible idea for end-to-end travelers as well. With Amtrak's current schedules, I can leave upstate New York on Friday night and be in southern California early Monday morning, something we've done many times, with one transfer in Chicago. A series of day trains would probably take five or six days, about the same as driving, plus we'd have schlep luggage on and off the trains and back and forth in cabs to/from hotels. I'd never do it. 

But along with eliminating dining service, it does seem to fit right in with the goal of Anderson, Gardner et al to do away with everything that makes long-distance trains attractive as a travel option. I think they'd be hesitant about eliminating sleeper cars, though, because they actually do count on getting a good chunk of revenue from those.


----------



## Asher

crescent-zephyr said:


> Indeed they do! Best way to travel, yes even better than Amtrak!
> 
> 
> 
> But you can take an overnight train from Scotland to London and connect to the Eurostar that morning. No need to overnight in London.


I’ve thought about that a lot. I think it’s great if you’ve been there done that. I haven’t, don’t want to miss anything.


----------



## jis

jebr said:


> There's a vast difference between having a train stop in a city for 8-10 hours just to have everything run in daylight, and having connection points where people can transfer between trains same-day, many of which have multiple daily connection options available. Even Chicago is set up for long distance trains to not have overnight layovers between many of the most common city pairs, especially pre-COVID.


Indeed Chicago is explicitly designed for same day connection, and Amtrak bends over backwards to adjust schedules of LD trains arrivals and departures into/from Chicago to ensure same day connection as much as possible, sometimes to the detriment of some scheduled times at other places.

In the Amtrak system New Orleans is the only location that I can think of where most connections are overnight, But it works out that way mostly to keep connections in Los Angeles, Chicago and New York/Washington DC same day.


----------



## TinCan782

Or, a combination of rail and air...

From the National Air and Space Museum


----------



## jis

FrensicPic said:


> Or, a combination of rail and air...
> 
> From the National Air and Space Museum



Some could argue that this was the beginning of the end of Luxurious LD trains.


----------



## Qapla

If I'm traveling with luggage I would hate to have to keep putting my luggage on and off the train each night and having to lug it to a motel room somewhere just to have to lug it back to the train the next morning


----------



## SanDiegan

caravanman said:


> Is it possible, given the distances between larger cities, to devise a train system something like this... Folk get on one train in the morning, travel all day, with appropriate intermediate station stops, and arrive somewhere to spend the night in a hotel. The train set can return to the original city next day providing the oposite service.
> The passenger boards another train next morning, and travels onward again, repeating untill arriving at their destination.
> No need for elaborate meal arrangements, nor sleeping cars...
> Overall, the individal's journey will take longer, as one is not travelling at night, but it seems to offer a sensible alternative to silly sleeper car prices, and yeuky food? Are city pairs just too near or too far apart to make this workable?



The United States is a very large country. Trains already take too long for most people, even without stopping overnight. Even in Europe, which has fast trains, overnight trains are making a bit of a comeback and the food looks better than what Amtrak is now serving.


----------



## nti1094

caravanman said:


> Is it possible, given the distances between larger cities, to devise a train system something like this... Folk get on one train in the morning, travel all day, with appropriate intermediate station stops, and arrive somewhere to spend the night in a hotel. The train set can return to the original city next day providing the oposite service.
> The passenger boards another train next morning, and travels onward again, repeating untill arriving at their destination.
> No need for elaborate meal arrangements, nor sleeping cars...
> Overall, the individal's journey will take longer, as one is not travelling at night, but it seems to offer a sensible alternative to silly sleeper car prices, and yeuky food? Are city pairs just too near or too far apart to make this workable?


That sounds exhausting. Plus I love sleeping a few hours and waking up hundreds of miles and a state or two further on my trip.


----------



## Asher

It reminds me of flying El Cheapo Air, changing planes 4 times to make a flight from LAX to The East Coast. 5 hrs. Flight time, 16 hrs. Trip time.


----------



## west point

What is unknown is what demand is there going to be for Amtrak travel once restrictions are loosen. There is a lot of potential pent up demand. Cruise bookings for 2022 are way up for times that far in the future. Is Amtrak going to be swamped or is demand to fall. I have no idea.


----------



## neroden

caravanman said:


> Is it possible, given the distances between larger cities, to devise a train system something like this... Folk get on one train in the morning, travel all day, with appropriate intermediate station stops, and arrive somewhere to spend the night in a hotel. The train set can return to the original city next day providing the oposite service.
> The passenger boards another train next morning, and travels onward again, repeating untill arriving at their destination.
> No need for elaborate meal arrangements, nor sleeping cars...
> Overall, the individal's journey will take longer, as one is not travelling at night, but it seems to offer a sensible alternative to silly sleeper car prices, and yeuky food? Are city pairs just too near or too far apart to make this workable?



Nope.

So, the deal is this: the train's advantage is that it's faster than driving. By not running overnight, on longer routes, you give up that advantage. An overnight trip from NY to Chicago ("get on in the evening, get off in the morning") is competitive with the two-day drive. It's even competitive with the flight, which takes 4 hours door-to-door due to the airport locations.

A two-day train trip? Not really competitive with anything and nobody would take it.

This is, to be polite, a very stupid idea.


----------



## 20th Century Rider

jebr said:


> The biggest problem (as others have stated) is that it causes huge headaches for certain intermediate markets. A lot of passengers don't travel end-to-end, but probably travel through an intermediate market or two. As someone who (before moving) would travel semi-regularly from St. Cloud to Winona, a break in MSP would make that trip unworkable and have pushed me to take the car. LD train service works by having tons of intermediate markets that can be done on the same train, and breaking up that train would sever the practicality of many of those intermediate markets.


Well said... which mandates the issue of daily service. And! On some sectors of that LD line... implementation of additional service... such as the ski train out of Denver hooking up with CZ... and the once time ski train from SEA to Leavenworth. Perhaps an additional train added on certain high volume sectors such as between MSP and CHI. Additional daily service between CHI and IND. Etc. 

More frequency encourages more ridership because patrons can better manage into their schedules.


----------



## railiner

west point said:


> What is unknown is what demand is there going to be for Amtrak travel once restrictions are loosen. There is a lot of potential pent up demand. Cruise bookings for 2022 are way up for times that far in the future. Is Amtrak going to be swamped or is demand to fall. I have no idea.


Indeed. Maybe Amtrak should take a page out of Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings book, and accept reservations two years ahead? That is how they are able to pay their bills until they resume service. In their case, pent up demand is so high, that their Oceania brand sold out a full around the world cruise in only one day! I can imagine trains like the CZ or CS would do well for peak period sleeper travel. The 'Silver's' would, too.

While Amtrak is not as dependent on future bookings to sustain their day to day operations during the pandemic, such future demand might help their case in Congress to secure more funding for added service and more equipment...


----------



## jloewen

Qapla said:


> If I want to go to NY from JAX, I can catch the train and ride overnight in a coach seat. I would be on the train (sleeping) while the train takes me to my destination. The trip would be time well spent since I am using my daylight hours for what I want/need to do in NY instead of looking out the window of the train while using the time I had planned to use in NY because the train does not run while I sleep.
> 
> So, while travel time is a factor (and there are those of us who do not fly) doing so through the night is a perfectly acceptable use of this travel time so the daylight hours are spent at my destination - not making my trip longer than it has to be and forcing me to rent a room for the night when I can sleep on the train without additional cost.


Yes, when I had a Fulbright to Australia (and was younger!), I bought a bus pass. The company (Greyhound?) had a night train and a day train linking all the main cities (except Perth). I took the night train from Melbourne to Sydney, so I could spend the day doing stuff and learning stuff and meeting people in Sydney. Then back on the bus to sleep to the next stop, which was Brisbane. Then Townsville, etc. I learned that the SECOND night on the bus one can always sleep OK, if only owing to exhaustion because of lack of sleep the first night....


----------



## TheCrescent

caravanman said:


> Is it possible, given the distances between larger cities, to devise a train system something like this... Folk get on one train in the morning, travel all day, with appropriate intermediate station stops, and arrive somewhere to spend the night in a hotel. The train set can return to the original city next day providing the oposite service.
> The passenger boards another train next morning, and travels onward again, repeating untill arriving at their destination.
> No need for elaborate meal arrangements, nor sleeping cars...
> Overall, the individal's journey will take longer, as one is not travelling at night, but it seems to offer a sensible alternative to silly sleeper car prices, and yeuky food? Are city pairs just too near or too far apart to make this workable?



I pay "silly sleeping car prices" because I will not take a long trip in coach, so if sleeping cars aren't available, I won't take trips on Amtrak other than very short day trips. So you'd lose me as a customer.

The sleeping car prices one some routes, such as the Crescent, are pretty high, yet pre-Covid, sleeping cars were often sold out, indicating that there is demand for sleeping car space even at high prices, which hopefully indicates that sleeping car space can be more profitable for Amtrak (or less money-losing) than coach space. Why get rid of that?


----------



## Skyline

The Skeena works because it is mostly a tourist-populated train. 

There are probably routes in the US where the same thing could exist, maybe prosper. The key would be heavy promotion as a tourist excursion, careful choice of the intermediate stopover cities and hotel/dining availability (both cities and venues need to be fabulous enough to attract the tourists!), and decent food served on board during the daytime hours the trains are making miles. 

But as basic transportation? Others here have described the folly well.


----------



## Deni

caravanman said:


> As someone who has enjoyed tens of thousands LD Amtrak miles, I am probably already seen as needing psychiatric help...
> If I travel from Scotland to London, it seems fine to expect to spend the night in London, then board the Eurostar to Paris the next morning. I dont expect a through train. Admittedly, those folk who want to travel from Luton to Gatwick across London will have dozens of other trains to cater for their needs also...


But you do also have the option of a sleeper from Scotland to catch the Eurostar in the morning. I've done both myself and prefer the sleeper rather than a hotel stay in London.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

Skyline said:


> The Skeena works because it is mostly a tourist-populated train.
> 
> There are probably routes in the US where the same thing could exist, maybe prosper. The key would be heavy promotion as a tourist excursion, careful choice of the intermediate stopover cities and hotel/dining availability (both cities and venues need to be fabulous enough to attract the tourists!), and decent food served on board during the daytime hours the trains are making miles.
> 
> But as basic transportation? Others here have described the folly well.



Also... the Skeena isn’t profitable is it?


----------



## jis

crescent-zephyr said:


> Also... the Skeena isn’t profitable is it?


Revenue C$1.4 Million, Loss C$8.4 Million in 2019

But its performance has been marginally improving over the last ten or so years.


----------



## Qapla

Many Gov't entities and departments do not make a profit - they are still funded as needed to continue operation ... why should Amtrak be any different?


----------



## railiner

Qapla said:


> Many Gov't entities and departments do not make a profit - they are still funded as needed to continue operation ... why should Amtrak be any different?


Besides the Postal Service, which government entities are you referring to?


----------



## Qapla

I'm sure I can't name them all ... just off the top of my head:

FCC
SEC
Army
Navy
Congress itself
Whitehouse Maintenance
Secret Service
and no one should say they are "different" because they are not supposed to make a profit because they are not a "business" - Amtrak and the Post Office should not be considered businesses either - they are a "service" just like many of the other services.


----------



## Cal

Qapla said:


> and no one should say they are "different" because they are not supposed to make a profit because they are not a "business" - Amtrak and the Post Office should not be considered businesses either - they are a "service" just like many of the other services.


Sadly, America doesn't seem to get that. Which is why we have the Amtrak we have today.


----------



## MARC Rider

jis said:


> Why is it that people who claim to be passenger rail enthusiasts spend such an inordinate amount of time trying to figure out how to make the service worse? Seems like some kind of a Stockholm Syndrome or something, possibly worthy of a learned psychological study.


Actually, I was just being a devil's advocate on this. Of course, they should keep the existing through runs. But they should also add daylight runs along the route, too. If they did that, I would consider taking the more leisurely daytime service, for example, a trip to Chicago by taking a day train the Cleveland, spend the night in Cleveland, and then take another day train the next morning to Chicago. Time-wise it's not that much different from driving to Chicago, except if I were driving, I'd probably be able to make it to Toledo before I wanted to find a motel. Of course, the main clientele for such day trains wouldn't be train nerds like me who would enjoy seeing the whole route in daylight. But it would be cool if they put a sightseer lounge on the Washington-Cleveland day train.


----------



## MARC Rider

Qapla said:


> I'm sure I can't name them all ... just off the top of my head:
> 
> FCC
> SEC
> Army
> Navy
> Congress itself
> Whitehouse Maintenance
> Secret Service
> and no one should say they are "different" because they are not supposed to make a profit because they are not a "business" - Amtrak and the Post Office should not be considered businesses either - they are a "service" just like many of the other services.


Don't forget:

EPA
Social Security Administration
USGS (everybody likes good maps!)
National Park Service
FAA

etc., etc..


----------



## MARC Rider

I will also mention that the last few times I've ridden through Chicago, I've scheduled in an overnight stay. I started doing it after the NS meltdown when there were monumental delays and lots of misconnects (which I never experience, but also never wanted to.) I did it once so I could catch the Cardinal, but, in general, I find it makes the trip more relaxing not to have to worry about my connection. And on the trip for the 2019 Gathering, I'm glad I was hanging around Chicago, where 911 took me to Northwestern Memorial Hospital when I had my little Bell's Palsy crisis rather than being on the Texas Eagle somewhere in the middle of the Ozarks in the middle of the night. And when they finally discharged me from the hospital, I didn't have to deal with a missed train, but rather just went to my hotel and had a good night's sleep.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

caravanman said:


> No need for elaborate meal arrangements, nor sleeping cars...


So anything more complicated than Stouffer's is considered "elaborate" now?



caravanman said:


> Overall, the individal's journey will take longer, as one is not travelling at night, but it seems to offer a sensible alternative to silly sleeper car prices, and yeuky food?


You've told us you do not travel by sleeper or eat in the diner so how does this affect you and why would you care?



caravanman said:


> Do we need "Long Distance" trains?


Who is "we" in this sentence? All of these trains & stations are thousands of miles away from you. If you're going to volunteer to give away services other people clearly want while having little or no skin in the game be honest about it.


----------



## Ryan

jis said:


> Revenue C$1.4 Million, Loss C$8.4 Million in 2019
> 
> But its performance has been marginally improving over the last ten or so years.





Qapla said:


> Many Gov't entities and departments do not make a profit - they are still funded as needed to continue operation ... why should Amtrak be any different?


The government isn't in the business of subsidizing leisure. We find value in the government entities you mention outside of profit, they are what is required to have a functioning society (and I would absolutely include the transportation-providing aspect of what Amtrak provides as a part of that). Adding some daytime only land cruise should have to stand on its own merits and earn a profit, or fall by the wayside.


----------



## Qapla

I never said/indicated/agreed with/endorsed an "all sleeper" train ... all coach, maybe


----------



## Cal

Qapla said:


> I never said/indicated/agreed with/endorsed an "all sleeper" train ... all coach, maybe


I mean. 

I wouldn't endorse either


----------



## fdaley

Ryan said:


> The government isn't in the business of subsidizing leisure.



What about the National Park Service?


----------



## Mailliw

To me personally the ability to travel at night while sleeping comfortably is a huge practical advantage of long distance train travel.


fdaley said:


> What about the National Park Service?


Or museums, zoos, and municipal golf courses?


----------



## Trogdor

fdaley said:


> What about the National Park Service?



They also have this fairly minor role of preserving natural (and cultural) resources, which are significant to the environmental and social preservation of our country.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Qapla said:


> Many Gov't entities and departments do not make a profit - they are still funded as needed to continue operation ... why should Amtrak be any different?



Maybe not make a profit but if they lose money and depend on funding guess where the funding comes from? You can say you don't have a problem paying for Amtrak but ask the people of Columbus, Las Vegas, Nashville, and Louisville who are paying for no Amtrak or the people of Cleveland and Cincinnati who are paying for only graveyard shift Amtrak service.


----------



## MARC Rider

Ryan said:


> The government isn't in the business of subsidizing leisure.


National Parks Service? 
(Darn it., I really need to read all the replies before I post. Someone beat me to it.)


----------



## railiner

Perhaps the question should be, _should _the government be in the business of subsidizing leisure?


----------



## Exvalley

railiner said:


> Perhaps the question should be, _should _the government be in the business of subsidizing leisure?


I view the National Park service somewhat differently due to the preservation component. Whether or not the lands are used for leisure, it's important to preserve these lands from development.


----------



## Mailliw

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Maybe not make a profit but if they lose money and depend on funding guess where the funding comes from? You can say you don't have a problem paying for Amtrak but ask the people of Columbus, Las Vegas, Nashville, and Louisville who are paying for no Amtrak or the people of Cleveland and Cincinnati who are paying for only graveyard shift Amtrak service.


That's a good argument for expanding Amtrak service. Which many of these communities could have if their state legislatures supported it.


----------



## jis

Before even thinking of all Sleeper trains there must exist cost effective Sleeper service, something that is currently unheard of in the US.

Once you have that then all these arguments about Sleeper service being luxury simply vaporizes into thin air. 

The argument that no one will use a cost effective Sleeper service because it does not have privacy or what not has got to be an elitist railfan position. It cannot possibly be true for the general public who would go through incredible pains to get the lowest fares and suffer through multiple indignities in the process. This may be another case where the railfan's unrealistic desires are holding back progress in the growth of passenger rail in the US.


----------



## tomfuller

Exvalley said:


> I view the National Park service somewhat differently due to the preservation component. Whether or not the lands are used for leisure, it's important to preserve these lands from development.


This will be my 10th summer (hopefully last) as a United States Forest Service fire lookout. I like to think that the little one or two tree lightning caused fires I report save more than my pay in extinction costs. If they went unreported until they were many acres the cost multiplies. The major trail that runs through many National Forests including the Deschutes where I work is the Pacific Crest Trail which runs from the Mexico border to the Canadian border. There are many trails that connect to it. 
It does get very expensive when air drops are made on fires. I've watched an air tanker fly past my tower that came all the way from Nevada to central Oregon to put a load on a fire that I called in.


----------



## Deni

jis said:


> Before even thinking of all Sleeper trains there must exist cost effective Sleeper service, something that is currently unheard of in the US.
> 
> Once you have that then all these arguments about Sleeper service being luxury simply vaporizes into thin air.
> 
> The argument that no one will use a cost effective Sleeper service because it does not have privacy or what not has got to be an elitist railfan position. It cannot possibly be true for the general public who would go through incredible pains to get the lowest fares and suffer through multiple indignities in the process. This may be another case where the railfan's unrealistic desires are holding back progress in the growth of passenger rail in the US.


I've posted similar argument before, the idea that "Americans won't go for that" has always struck me as so false. Americans traveling overseas do it all the time.


----------



## Qapla

Americans would go for lowering the prices of the existing sleeper service


----------



## jis

Qapla said:


> Americans would go for lowering the prices of the existing sleeper service


Current Sleeper service has too few berths (effectively) per car to be an effective low fare sleeper. Until people take that to their heart and look for densers packed Sleepers these discussions will go round and round in circles and nothing will come of them. Minimally something like Slumbercoaches need to be brought into consideration.


----------



## Asher

FrensicPic said:


> Or, a combination of rail and air...
> 
> From the National Air and Space Museum



What a way to travel across the entire country and never see a damn thing.


----------



## Bob Dylan

railiner said:


> Perhaps the question should be, _should _the government be in the business of subsidizing leisure?


Yes!


----------



## PaTrainFan

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Maybe not make a profit but if they lose money and depend on funding guess where the funding comes from? You can say you don't have a problem paying for Amtrak but ask the people of Columbus, Las Vegas, Nashville, and Louisville who are paying for no Amtrak or the people of Cleveland and Cincinnati who are paying for only graveyard shift Amtrak service.



This is a constant argument of politicians. At the same time, my tax dollars are helping pay for highways in Los Angeles, Seattle and Missoula, Mont. Politicians are often arguing over "donor states" and "recipient states" with any Federal government money.


----------



## neroden

railiner said:


> Indeed. Maybe Amtrak should take a page out of Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings book, and accept reservations two years ahead?


They should. I don't think the 1970s-era reservations system ARROW can handle it.

If it can, then we're back to Amtrak's usual bad-management-attitude problem; can't book in advance if idiot management keeps cutting train service.



> That is how they are able to pay their bills until they resume service. In their case, pent up demand is so high, that their Oceania brand sold out a full around the world cruise in only one day! I can imagine trains like the CZ or CS would do well for peak period sleeper travel. The 'Silver's' would, too.


Lake Shore Limited too. I'm ready to book for Chicago and New York.



> While Amtrak is not as dependent on future bookings to sustain their day to day operations during the pandemic, such future demand might help their case in Congress to secure more funding for added service and more equipment...


----------



## neroden

Ryan said:


> The government isn't in the business of subsidizing leisure.


It actually is. I can prove this!

The first example is the 40-hour work week. Subsidizing leisure, as the tycoons of the 19th century complained! Seriously, people want weekends and evenings off? Why should the government force corporations to subsidize that? (That's sarcasm in case anyone didn't notice, but it is what the tycoons said.)

The National Parks. Yes, they also have an environmental conservation purpose, but their original purpose -- subsidizing leisure!

National Holidays -- subsidizing leisure!

Every state also subsidizes leisure with State Parks and State Fairs. Every state has a tourism promotion department.

Most cities subsidize leisure. City parks and local festivals are uncontroversial. City-owned soccer fields and skating rinks are usually uncontroversial. City-owned golf courses are more controversial. City-funded stadiums for professional sports teams which they don't own are quite controversial.

Over half of all travel is leisure travel; the percentage of business travel keeps dropping. The government subsidizes road transportation not for business travel (business could build its own toll roads if it actually had to), but primarily so that people can visit their friends and families, or receive deliveries which are primarily for entertainment.

In the broader picture, the purpose of government is to "improve the general welfare". For all of history, this has meant giving people more opportunities for leisure, less time slaving away.


----------



## sttom

Trogdor said:


> They also have this fairly minor role of preserving natural (and cultural) resources, which are significant to the environmental and social preservation of our country.





railiner said:


> Perhaps the question should be, _should _the government be in the business of subsidizing leisure?


To combine the thought between these two points, subsidizing Amtrak is subsidizing leisure and preserving our environment in the same activity. A train is going to burn less fuel and thus lower CO2 emissions over a similar distance compared to a car or flying. Which is helping the environment and allowing people to possibly take a leisure trip, or visit family or go on a business trip. Either way, a bunch of people not driving or flying is better than them driving or flying. On top of environmental preservation, having a functioning and useful rail system helps reduce traffic on the highways and at airports and running the trains are cheaper overall than expanding highways that will be full upon completion or have to fight with people to build or expand an airport. 

The rub as it is would be what type of extra trains are we talking about? Running more trains would make Amtrak a more convenient form of transportation providing the "balance" it was originally intended to be. If Amtrak had more routes and more trains running them, they would carry more people. At best, they are carrying people who are transit dependent, tourists, and people not willing to use another form of transportation. No offense to transit dependent people, but they are not the most lucrative to serve (cause that's a thing Amtrak needs to care about that a bus agency wouldn't care about), tourists can be fickle, and those of us that hate driving aren't served well by the existing paradigm. Frankly, Amtrak needs to grow to survive, not hack itself into bits just to say it has more routes.


----------



## Barb Stout

tomfuller said:


> This will be my 10th summer (hopefully last) as a United States Forest Service fire lookout. I like to think that the little one or two tree lightning caused fires I report save more than my pay in extinction costs. If they went unreported until they were many acres the cost multiplies. The major trail that runs through many National Forests including the Deschutes where I work is the Pacific Crest Trail which runs from the Mexico border to the Canadian border. There are many trails that connect to it.
> It does get very expensive when air drops are made on fires. I've watched an air tanker fly past my tower that came all the way from Nevada to central Oregon to put a load on a fire that I called in.


The Forest Service is quite different from the National Park Service. The former is under the Department of Agriculture and the latter is under the Department of Interior. But NPS does indeed still have national resource preservation as one of its mandates which does often come in conflict with the "recreational" aspects of some parks.


----------



## 20th Century Rider

jis said:


> Indeed Chicago is explicitly designed for same day connection, and Amtrak bends over backwards to adjust schedules of LD trains arrivals and departures into/from Chicago to ensure same day connection as much as possible, sometimes to the detriment of some scheduled times at other places.
> 
> In the Amtrak system New Orleans is the only location that I can think of where most connections are overnight, But it works out that way mostly to keep connections in Los Angeles, Chicago and New York/Washington DC same day.


Like what you said... but it should be added that suspension of daily service could cause a two or three delay between trains mandating overnight in uber expensive Chicago hotels.


----------



## me_little_me

Ryan said:


> The government isn't in the business of subsidizing leisure. We find value in the government entities you mention outside of profit, they are what is required to have a functioning society (and I would absolutely include the transportation-providing aspect of what Amtrak provides as a part of that). Adding some daytime only land cruise should have to stand on its own merits and earn a profit, or fall by the wayside.


The same could be said of so many things. Those that are using the roads or airlines for leisure should pay for it especially the RVers on the roads and any all-business class planes (as there used to be) should have been charged the full cost of the services received.
But I agree with you that any daytime (or probably overnight) all-sleeper train should make it's cost back. But Amtrak doesn't run any of those. And the one that is closest to being a land-cruise (Auto-Train) pretty much meets that criteria even though it carries coach passengers also.


----------



## TrackWalker

20th Century Rider said:


> Like what you said... but it should be added that suspension of daily service could cause a two or three delay between trains mandating overnight in uber expensive Chicago hotels.



How well I am aware of that statement. 

I'm having to spend a Saturday and Sunday night in Chicago in April to make a connection from the TE to the EB. Watching the daily hotel price go up in proportion to the AMTK points going down. Hopefully the lower price will cycle back next Monday.


----------



## me_little_me

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Maybe not make a profit but if they lose money and depend on funding guess where the funding comes from? You can say you don't have a problem paying for Amtrak but ask the people of Columbus, Las Vegas, Nashville, and Louisville who are paying for no Amtrak or the people of Cleveland and Cincinnati who are paying for only graveyard shift Amtrak service.


There is a lot that the government provides that is not distributed equally. The only question is whether it is distributed equitably. So farm states get big farm money and cities get local transit. And NYC's 8 million population get cheated on interstate money but get big grants for transit. Those of us in the mountains get no help for our shorelines but the rich seaside communities get cheated out of welfare funds and the poor inner cities don't get big national parks. Tiny communities get post offices but my tiny town is near a bigger city so I we have to drive further to get to that city's post office.
My two nearest Amtrak stations are in another state but it makes more sense to have it there than where I live.

Then of course is the matter of local contribution and local support. Are Tennessee, Kentucky and Ohio willing to put up or shut up? Nevada has a train for its measly population but SD and Wyoming do not so why are Las Vegas people getting cheated and why does Nevada have two major interstates and Delaware have only a few miles of one?

Equity, not equality. Willingness and ability to contribute. Need, not equality.


----------



## 20th Century Rider

TrackWalker said:


> How well I am aware of that statement.
> 
> I'm having to spend a Saturday and Sunday night in Chicago in April to make a connection from the TE to the EB. Watching the daily hotel price go up in proportion to the AMTK points going down. Hopefully the lower price will cycle back next Monday.


Ah Ha! But who says you can't make lemons into lemonade? Depending on your [assumed somewhat late] arrival, and your departure one or two days later... you don't have to stay in downtown Chicago... you can use this as an opportunity to explore different points of interest in the area... while at the same time, pay less for lodging.

If you are on the EB you could get off in Milwaukee with its historic riverfront and lake front. Having a beer with brats in Milwaukee is a culinary experience!

You can explore some of the closer in areas on the Metra System.

You can breeze into the South Shore areas.

All of this will require some careful planning for schedule and hotels near local stations... which in this time of COVID could be some what difficult. Also take into account the possible lateness of the incoming LD train. If you are coming from the East... most of those trains arrive in the morning and are less apt to be late unless of course there's a big storm.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

me_little_me said:


> There is a lot that the government provides that is not distributed equally. The only question is whether it is distributed equitably. So farm states get big farm money and cities get local transit. And NYC's 8 million population get cheated on interstate money but get big grants for transit. Those of us in the mountains get no help for our shorelines but the rich seaside communities get cheated out of welfare funds and the poor inner cities don't get big national parks. Tiny communities get post offices but my tiny town is near a bigger city so I we have to drive further to get to that city's post office.
> My two nearest Amtrak stations are in another state but it makes more sense to have it there than where I live.
> 
> Then of course is the matter of local contribution and local support. Are Tennessee, Kentucky and Ohio willing to put up or shut up? Nevada has a train for its measly population but SD and Wyoming do not so why are Las Vegas people getting cheated and why does Nevada have two major interstates and Delaware have only a few miles of one?
> 
> Equity, not equality. Willingness and ability to contribute. Need, not equality.



What state funding is West Virginia putting up for Byrd Crap? What state funding are North Dakota and Montana putting up for the Empire Builder? Why do they get "free" trains while Tennessee, Kentucky, and Ohio have to "pay" for theirs? South Dakota and Wyoming aren't getting cheated because hardly anyone lives there. When more people live there and/or more people want to go there, they'll "deserve" a train just like they'll deserve an airport. The city of Las Vegas in 2019 had 651,319 people. The entire state of Wyoming had 578,759. It's a joke you can't take Amtrak to Las Vegas but you can to lovely Thurmond, West Virginia, population 5!


----------



## 20th Century Rider

TrackWalker said:


> How well I am aware of that statement.
> 
> I'm having to spend a Saturday and Sunday night in Chicago in April to make a connection from the TE to the EB. Watching the daily hotel price go up in proportion to the AMTK points going down. Hopefully the lower price will cycle back next Monday.


I see you are coming in on the Texas Eagle... pick a small town to explore just before Chicago such as Springfield or Peoria. I don't recommend St. Louis for such a stay as the downtown area is questionable and much is run down... however the light rail can get you into Clayton or some of the other satellite towns.


----------



## TrackWalker

TrackWalker said:


> ...I'm having to spend a Saturday and Sunday night in Chicago in April to make a connection from the TE to the EB. ...





20th Century Rider said:


> I see you are coming in on the Texas Eagle... pick a small town to explore just before Chicago such as Springfield or Peoria. I don't recommend St. Louis for such a stay as the downtown area is questionable and much is run down... however the light rail can get you into Clayton or some of the other satellite towns.



Maybe I'll just hide in the Metropolitan Lounge for two nights as this is AMTK's fine scheduling plan. (They still have some food in there, right?)


----------



## sttom

me_little_me said:


> There is a lot that the government provides that is not distributed equally. The only question is whether it is distributed equitably. So farm states get big farm money and cities get local transit. And NYC's 8 million population get cheated on interstate money but get big grants for transit. Those of us in the mountains get no help for our shorelines but the rich seaside communities get cheated out of welfare funds and the poor inner cities don't get big national parks. Tiny communities get post offices but my tiny town is near a bigger city so I we have to drive further to get to that city's post office.
> My two nearest Amtrak stations are in another state but it makes more sense to have it there than where I live.
> 
> Then of course is the matter of local contribution and local support. Are Tennessee, Kentucky and Ohio willing to put up or shut up? Nevada has a train for its measly population but SD and Wyoming do not so why are Las Vegas people getting cheated and why does Nevada have two major interstates and Delaware have only a few miles of one?
> 
> Equity, not equality. Willingness and ability to contribute. Need, not equality.



The way things are done now aren't even done equitably. A better question is should we be expecting funding and services proportionally or of equal value or reasonably useful to the applicable population? Whether or not farmers get corn subsidies has no barring on if anyone gets funding for public transportation. Its frankly a little insulting to imply that states like Iowa chose corn subsidies over a functioning rail system. 

Just because New York City (not a state) gets funding for public transit and rural states get farm subsidies doesn't mean every state and locality gets an "equitable" split of farm subsidies and transit funds. A lot of states and local governments have to foot the bill for our non highway transportation projects. Hell 75% of BART's initial funding was local funding, Portland has funded some its MAX lines on its own and the same thing can be said for an innumerable number of bus operators that have to pay their own way with little to no federal funds or debase themselves to get 10% of a project federally funded. I would kill for equitable!

And what would be wrong with a proportional system of funding domestic issues at the federal level? What cause some states paid for things in the intervening years? So what. A better future for rail, schools, what have you needs to be weighed on their own merits instead of being weighed on what people in the past did. I want a funding mechanism for Amtrak so we all can have better rail service. If people in Georgia gets more trains paid for by Congress, that's a good thing so long as California can apply to the same pot of money for our services. Same thing for other forms of transportation.


----------



## 20th Century Rider

TrackWalker said:


> Maybe I'll just hide in the Metropolitan Lounge for two nights as this is AMTK's fine scheduling plan. (They still have some food in there, right?)


Have you checked with Amtrak regarding accommodation in CHI? If not free they may be able to get you a discounted rate at the Swisshotel... who is their partner hotel for stranded pax. What do you have to lose by calling customer service???


----------



## MARC Rider

anumberone said:


> What a way to travel across the entire country and never see a damn thing.


Except that you saw a lot more of the country when flying in a Ford Tri-motor back then than you see flying in a 737 now.


----------



## MARC Rider

FrensicPic said:


> Or, a combination of rail and air...
> 
> From the National Air and Space Museum



Just looking at that Ford Tri-motor makes me airsick thinking about the turbulence. 
Worth looking at the Wikipedia article for the Ford Tri-motor -- Cruise speed, 107 mph (the Northeast Regional goes faster), Service ceiling 16,500 ft., but apparently the cabin isn't pressurized, so if they really flew that high, all the passengers (and the pilots, too) would need to suck oxygen from a bottle. I suppose in reality, they flew at lower altitudes.

The Transcontinental Air Transport (TAT) Wiki page is also interesting. Some wags suggested that the Initials TAT stood for "Take a train." The very first airline meals (catered by Fred Harvey) were served on the TAT flights. One way fare was $352 (1929 dollars, in today's money, $5,384.61, so don't complain about Amtrak sleeper fares.). The airline lost almost 3 million dollars (1929 dollars, about $46 million in today's money) in it's first 18 months of operation. It eventually merged with a bunch of other airlines, and evolved into TWA. In September 1929, a westbound flight crashed in New Mexico, killing all aboard. It was the first plane crash on a regular commercial route.

Here's a link to the timetable and route map.

I don't think it's a business model that would be revived, though, some to think of it, when I took the Chief our to Lamy, my traveling companions flew out to Chicago and met the train there. And I'll bet there are a lot of people who fly out to Denver and then catch the Zephyr.


----------



## IndyLions

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> What state funding is West Virginia putting up for Byrd Crap? What state funding are North Dakota and Montana putting up for the Empire Builder? Why do they get "free" trains while Tennessee, Kentucky, and Ohio have to "pay" for theirs? South Dakota and Wyoming aren't getting cheated because hardly anyone lives there. When more people live there and/or more people want to go there, they'll "deserve" a train just like they'll deserve an airport. The city of Las Vegas in 2019 had 651,319 people. The entire state of Wyoming had 578,759. It's a joke you can't take Amtrak to Las Vegas but you can to lovely Thurmond, West Virginia, population 5!



Your beef is with the founding fathers. Good luck with hammering out a new constitution in THIS environment….


----------



## caravanman

Devil's Advocate said:


> So anything more complicated than Stouffer's is considered "elaborate" now?
> 
> You've told us you do not travel by sleeper or eat in the diner so how does this affect you and why would you care?
> 
> Who is "we" in this sentence? All of these trains & stations are thousands of miles away from you. If you're going to volunteer to give away services other people clearly want while having little or no skin in the game be honest about it.



I think you are being a bit over the top with your offensive comments, even for a sarcastic misanthrope.
You should try to look at things from more than one perspective...

Elaborate refered to the need for an elaboratly equiped and staffed dinning car.

I don't only think of things for my benefit, I care about things that don't just affect me.

Is making a suggestion, floating an idea for discussion, "Volunteering to give away services" etc, etc?

I am pleased to have stimulated such a strong interest in the topic, and accept it was not a popular concept.


----------



## AmtrakBlue

TrackWalker said:


> Maybe I'll just hide in the Metropolitan Lounge for two nights as this is AMTK's fine scheduling plan. (They still have some food in there, right?)


No food in the Metropolitan Lounge during COVID. Bring your own.


----------



## railiner

Isn't it funny...how government money to your project is an "investment', while government money to someone else's, is 'welfare'?....


----------



## 20th Century Rider

caravanman said:


> I think you are being a bit over the top with your offensive comments, even for a sarcastic misanthrope.
> You should try to look at things from more than one perspective...
> 
> Elaborate refered to the need for an elaboratly equiped and staffed dinning car.
> 
> I don't only think of things for my benefit, I care about things that don't just affect me.
> 
> Is making a suggestion, floating an idea for discussion, "Volunteering to give away services" etc, etc?
> 
> I am pleased to have stimulated such a strong interest in the topic, and accept it was not a popular concept.


Agreed with everything you said... and said so well! At issue is an expected level of courtesy and respect from and about all members of this forum. What makes it so successful are the variety of ideas that come from presentors.

I've encountered some harsh responses and it reflects poorly on the one critisizing.

So c'mon all AU'ers... understand that the success of this forum is based upon the collective wisdom and varied ideas of all members; and who knows... some 'out of the box' idea may reach the 'ear' of an Amtrak management exec and bring for all of us some new and innovative upgrades!


----------



## Exvalley

Agreed. Denying one's right to an opinion because of their country of residency seems very inappropriate to me.


----------



## jis

Redacted


----------



## IndyLions

caravanman said:


> I think you are being a bit over the top with your offensive comments, even for a sarcastic misanthrope.
> You should try to look at things from more than one perspective...
> 
> Elaborate refered to the need for an elaboratly equiped and staffed dinning car.
> 
> I don't only think of things for my benefit, I care about things that don't just affect me.
> 
> Is making a suggestion, floating an idea for discussion, "Volunteering to give away services" etc, etc?
> 
> I am pleased to have stimulated such a strong interest in the topic, and accept it was not a popular concept.



My thoughts on your thread premise is this: I think it’s fine for a tourist line, but not for real transportation.

I also think that eliminating onboard amenities - even basic ones - turns a train ride into a bus ride.

But I think that pretty much sums up the feedback you’ve gotten so far. So mine’s not really any different.


----------



## MARC Rider

I think that the experience of the airline industry has shown all transportation providers that on-board amenities are not necessary to run a successful transportation service. Yeah, maybe on some longer trips you might need to serve up some food to keep the masses from rioting due to low blood sugar, but you really don't have to go out of your way to make it a culinary experience. And for everyone, "I'm never going to ride again until white-glove service and gourmet food are restored," there are many more who say, "just get me there safely on time at a competitive price."

Even without amenities, an Amtrak ride is superior to a bus ride. The only advantage of flying is that it's faster than anything else, so it's very easy to endure a few hours of misery in exchange for being able to travel coast to coast in 5-6 hours. The only other alternative is to drive it yourself, if you can afford to own a car, and if you're in good enough physical shape to drive. There are absolutely no amenities in your car, except maybe heat, air conditioning, and the sound system, but, of course, you can find all you want by the side of the road. Of course, you'll have to pull over and slow your trip in order to sample any of those amenities, but you can't have everything.


----------



## IndyLions

MARC Rider said:


> Even without amenities, an Amtrak ride is superior to a bus ride.



Depends on what you call amenities. If Amtrak crams more and more people onboard (ala buses and airlines) and eliminates all onboard food (ala buses and airlines) - it’s just a bus as far as I’m concerned. Sure - you can get up and walk around - but where to? Without a lounge you are just walking up and down the Coach aisles.

I might put up with that on a 15-30 minute commuter ride, but not on anything longer than that.

I need decent seats and at least a lounge/cafe car if I’m going to be on Amtrak for any length of time. For an overnight - I need a sleeper. Anything approaching 24 hours really needs a diner.

But maybe that’s just me. Call me an elitist.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

caravanman said:


> I think you are being a bit over the top with your offensive comments, even for a sarcastic misanthrope. You should try to look at things from more than one perspective...


How would you feel if a sleeper-only customer with a history of mocking coach class issues suggested abandoning all coach service? Would you consider that a legitimate suggestion or an unprovoked attack on coach customers? The last thing we need is more coach vs sleeper culture war nonsense and I thought we had moved past that already.



20th Century Rider said:


> So c'mon all AU'ers... understand that the success of this forum is based upon the collective wisdom and varied ideas of all members; and who knows... some 'out of the box' idea may reach the 'ear' of an Amtrak management exec and bring for all of us some new and innovative upgrades!


If I randomly suggested we abandon sleeper service on the Eagle or Sunset it would be a terrible idea but at least I would be sacrificing services I personally use and would have to live without in the future. When people volunteer to give away service that has little or no impact on their own needs I see no problem in pointing out the disconnect.


----------



## Exvalley

Devil's Advocate said:


> When people volunteer to give away service that has little or no impact on their own needs I see no problem in pointing out the disconnect.


The issue I have is that in part of your post you attempted to negate an opinion based on the author's country of residence. Here is what you said:


Devil's Advocate said:


> Who is "we" in this sentence? *All of these trains & stations are thousands of miles away from you.* If you're going to volunteer to give away services other people clearly want while having little or no skin in the game be honest about it.



If someone prefers not to ride in a sleeper, I am very interested in why they do not believe in the utility of a sleeper. I may not agree with them at the end of the day, but I would never suggest that their opinion is invalid for the sole reason that they prefer, and therefore utilize, something else. Arbitrary purity tests such as that don't encourage thoughtful discussion. All they seek to do is to dismiss the person themself - rather than encouraging the perspectives of people with diverse backgrounds and opinions.

I think that the elimination of long distance trains is bad for a variety of reasons, but I am glad that we had something interested to think about and discuss.

But, hey. It's been a stressful time lately. We all get cranky, including me.


----------



## 20th Century Rider

IndyLions said:


> Depends on what you call amenities. If Amtrak crams more and more people onboard (ala buses and airlines) and eliminates all onboard food (ala buses and airlines) - it’s just a bus as far as I’m concerned. Sure - you can get up and walk around - but where to? Without a lounge you are just walking up and down the Coach aisles.
> 
> I might put up with that on a 15-30 minute commuter ride, but not on anything longer than that.
> 
> I need decent seats and at least a lounge/cafe car if I’m going to be on Amtrak for any length of time. For an overnight - I need a sleeper. Anything approaching 24 hours really needs a diner.
> 
> But maybe that’s just me. Call me an elitist.


Amtrak seats are way more spacious and comfortable than on the bus... and another advantage is access to the lavatory... although maybe not as clean as one would desire.

That said, Amtrak is blocking seats during the pandemic... and after the pandemic it is reasonable to think the lounge cars and cafe car will be back again on rides that go beyond a few hours.

So... to me... rail travel is preferred as long as it goes where I want to go!


----------



## jis

caravanman said:


> I am a fan of the long distance trains, just feel than the way the USA views train travel is a bit old fashioned.


Indeed. US does not consider trains to be a legitimate means of long distance transport. We should not feed that mistaken idea with presumed solutions that only further establish it as a premise of planning.

It should be noted that the really old fashioned thing about the US is being firmly planted in the belief that a 900 mile journey must take 20 hours in the LD rail network, and nothing should be done abour reducing it to 10-12 hours. Even third world countries like India do not hold such views any more. The problem lies with the nation not having come to grips with efficient transportation as opposed to transportation no matter what the costs are in terms of environment and such.


----------



## 20th Century Rider

Exvalley said:


> The issue I have is that in part of your post you attempted to negate an opinion based on the author's country of residence. Here is what you said:
> 
> 
> If someone prefers not to ride in a sleeper, I am very interested in why they do not believe in the utility of a sleeper. I may not agree with them at the end of the day, but I would never suggest that their opinion is invalid for the sole reason that they prefer, and therefore utilize, something else. Arbitrary purity tests such as that don't encourage thoughtful discussion. All they seek to do is to dismiss the person themself - rather than encouraging the perspectives of people with diverse backgrounds and opinions.
> 
> I think that the elimination of long distance trains is bad for a variety of reasons, but I am glad that we had something interested to think about and discuss.


Agree with you 100%!

Overnight in a train vs overnight in a bus or a teeny coach seat in a plane ... offers more space and restroom access; of course a sleeper if one can afford it offers a slumber of a sleep! And save on a hotel bill at the same time!


----------



## caravanman

My thought were simply from a modernising perspective, with the outlook that getting from A to B on a train was more important than preserving a class of travel that has been criticised by many AU'rs as very expensive of late. My thoughts were that running day trains from say, Chicago to Denver, Denver to Salt Lake City, and another from SLT to Emeryville might be a good option instead of the current arrangement. Not needing sleepers, or dedicated dining cars was a by product of the daytime service suggestion.
I have no issue at all with long distance trains, I much prefer the longer rides, and again with the sleepers, I travel in coach mostly because I can't afford sleepers, not because there is anything wrong with them.
It was meant to be a discussion item, I know what it feels like now to be in a minority in America.


----------



## jis

caravanman said:


> My thought were simply from a modernising perspective, with the outlook that getting from A to B on a train was more important than preserving a class of travel that has been criticised by many AU'rs as very expensive of late. My thoughts were that running day trains from say, Chicago to Denver, Denver to Salt Lake City, and another from SLT to Emeryville might be a good option instead of the current arrangement. Not needing sleepers, or dedicated dining cars was a by product of the daytime service suggestion.


Not having Sleepers does no imply no night travel. In the heyday of LD travel in the US, the entire concept of "Chair Car" was invented here. There were Chair Car only luxury trains and milk runs ranging from the Santa Fe El Capitan to various minor route trains. IMHO, the fallacy in your argument is that it depends on the setting up of this false dichotomy and then leading yourself to the conclusion that there should be no night trains, thus removing one major advantage of trains over driving.

The Pioneer and the Desert Wind were originally introduced as Chair Car only trains and Sleepers were added later. So what we can certainly surmise is that the US has forgotten how to set up a usable network of cost effective trains, and has set itself up for failure with impossible goal of having overnight trains that must have Sleepers and Diners and bells and whistles and frills, and every possible Christmas tree ornament hung on it so that it becomes impossible to make it affordable. There I agree with you completely, but not on the proposed solution which panders to this idocy, by simply moving the luxury from the train to hotels at night, and denies those that can do without those luxuries otherwise convenient service.


----------



## Exvalley

It's an interesting chicken and egg question.

Which is likely to get infrastructure funded? Running once-daily long distance trains or point-to-point trains a couple of times per day? If it is the latter, would it make sense to focus on that in the short term with the intent of adding sleeper service in the long term?

My gut tells me that the best answer has already been proposed in this thread - which is to do both.


----------



## sttom

caravanman said:


> My thought were simply from a modernising perspective, with the outlook that getting from A to B on a train was more important than preserving a class of travel that has been criticised by many AU'rs as very expensive of late. My thoughts were that running day trains from say, Chicago to Denver, Denver to Salt Lake City, and another from SLT to Emeryville might be a good option instead of the current arrangement.



I guess cutting service is "modernization" these days. My question is how doing this would actually improve the usefulness of Amtrak as a form of transportation? On some routes, there aren't good places to terminate a train overnight. Not to mention what happens to people who need to make a trip to the other side of a terminating station? Adding day time services makes sense and I want them, but like basically everyone here, we want more service but not at the expense of what already exists. 

Sleepers may just be a "class of travel", but it is important not only to tourists. Some people will use sleepers as a form of transportation. Which, as far as I'm concerned is just as valid of a use of public transportation as someone riding in coach. Not to mention the environmental benefit of having someone make an overnight trip on a train in a sleeper instead of them driving.


----------



## Mailliw

What Amtrak really needs to do is introduce some kind of budget sleeper option in-between a coach seat and a private compartment such as couchettes, curtained beths, or a Slumbercoach like pod.


----------



## 20th Century Rider

The travel by day with hotel stop at night is great for a tourist train... but not for general rail travel... for several reasons.

1] On LD trains, travel continues during the night so that the journey isn't too excessively long in duration, and saves on the cost of that hotel stop en route.

2] A hotel night stop would add costs to the entirety of the trip in coach seating that approach sleeper compartment travel.

3] A passenger wanting to entrain 100 miles prior to the scheduled night stop, then continue the next day for another 50 miles of the train route... adds on a huge expense and time requirement to go just 150 miles.

Am I missing something??? This concept makes no sense to me except for the tourist train where all pax are traveling the entire route and want to spend time stopping and touring. The two North American examples being with the Rocky Mountaineer in Canada and the Denali Star Train in Alaska [see below.]






Alaska Railroad Denali Star Train Route | AlaskaTrain.com


Learn about the Alaska Railroad Denali Star train route with service between Anchorage, Talkeetna, Denali Park and Fairbanks. Online reservations, rates, schedules, advice and Alaskan train maps from AlaskaTrain.com.



www.alaskatrain.com










Truly Moving Train Journeys | Rocky Mountaineer


The official website for planning your Rocky Mountaineer train journey. Here you can learn more about how to experience the Canadian Rockies and the American Southwest by rail.




www.rockymountaineer.com


----------



## 20th Century Rider

Mailliw said:


> What Amtrak really needs to do is introduce some kind of budget sleeper option in-between a coach seat and a private compartment such as couchettes, curtained beths, or a Slumbercoach like pod.


The railroads did have those slumber coaches which continued for a while when Amtrak took over passenger trains. Excellent idea to bring it back... and why not make sleeper service available to more folks???









Slumbercoach – Amtrak


Built by Budd for the New York Central in 1959, Amtrak Slumbercoach 2092 at the Southeastern Railway Museum was one of an order of 12 built for Northern Pacific (4), Missouri Pacific (1), Ba…



www.train-museum.org


----------



## 20th Century Rider

Exvalley said:


> Agreed. Denying one's right to an opinion because of their country of residency seems very inappropriate to me.


Do bring on those opinions and ideas... diverse thinking from folks in diverse areas adds richness and perspectives that benefit the entire forum. 

Likewise AU'ers should be accommodating and respectful for other opinions and still disagree with logical analysis.

Remembering those college debates I participated in long ago... after the most fierce battle with an opposing team, we all shook hands at the end... and the winners treated the losers to some beers amongst laughing and camaraderie.

What's wrong with that? 

If you don't like the beer then don't drink it!


----------



## NEPATrainTraveler

The idea of stopping overnight at a hotel en route and then continuing on the next morning would have appealed to me while I was having a rough time sleeping in coach during my 2018 LSL trip, but looking at the arguments against the OP's idea I could see why it wouldn't work out. I would ride sleeper if I could, but its not usually in my budget, so that is why I ride coach. Looking back, there are things I should have brought along that possibly could have made my coach trip better, such as taking Drammamine. I do wish there was an option like the slumbercoaches though.


----------



## fdaley

MARC Rider said:


> I think that the experience of the airline industry has shown all transportation providers that on-board amenities are not necessary to run a successful transportation service. Yeah, maybe on some longer trips you might need to serve up some food to keep the masses from rioting due to low blood sugar, but you really don't have to go out of your way to make it a culinary experience. And for everyone, "I'm never going to ride again until white-glove service and gourmet food are restored," there are many more who say, "just get me there safely on time at a competitive price."
> 
> Even without amenities, an Amtrak ride is superior to a bus ride. The only advantage of flying is that it's faster than anything else, so it's very easy to endure a few hours of misery in exchange for being able to travel coast to coast in 5-6 hours. The only other alternative is to drive it yourself, if you can afford to own a car, and if you're in good enough physical shape to drive. There are absolutely no amenities in your car, except maybe heat, air conditioning, and the sound system, but, of course, you can find all you want by the side of the road. Of course, you'll have to pull over and slow your trip in order to sample any of those amenities, but you can't have everything.



Offering a miserable on-board experience works OK for airlines because, as you say, at least the misery is over in a matter of hours. I don't think the effort to export this standard of service to Amtrak is going to wind up being successful, because two or three days of misery is going to be unacceptable to a much larger share of travelers. "It's better than taking the bus" doesn't strike me as a very promising sales pitch for trips that require more than a few hours of travel.

I don't really like driving long distances, but with the current food offerings on Amtrak, driving is starting to look like a better option to me, at least for trips I used to take on the Lake Shore or Crescent. And if we want to take another family trip to the west coast, we can take the Canadian (assuming it resumes operation east of Winnipeg and that the border reopens). Or if we have to, we can fly. Or we can just stay home and let our west coast relatives come east, which they would certainly do by flying.

I don't need "white-glove service and gourmet food," which hasn't been offered on most U.S. trains in 50-plus years. But I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a restaurant-style meal of Applebee's or IHOP quality, which is what Amtrak was offering in its dining cars until the past couple of years. At least that would match the meal quality we'd get on any highway trip.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

MARC Rider said:


> Even without amenities, an Amtrak ride is superior to a bus ride.



How so? Actually I’d argue that Red Coach and Vonlane are far Superior to Amtrak corridor services. 

Even Jefferson lines is just as comfortable as Amtrak corridor to me. 




fdaley said:


> Offering a miserable on-board experience works OK for airlines because, as you say, at least the misery is over in a matter of hours.



What flights are you all flying? Southwest, Delta, and AA have always provided me with good on-board experiences. 

I usually fly first class but I usually travel in sleeper / bc on Amtrak.


----------



## fdaley

crescent-zephyr said:


> What flights are you all flying? Southwest, Delta, and AA have always provided me with good on-board experiences.



Actually, my last flight was on USAir, so that gives you an idea of how long it's been. So perhaps I am overdue for giving it another try. But I really was very happy with train travel until the past couple of years.


----------



## 20th Century Rider

fdaley said:


> Offering a miserable on-board experience works OK for airlines because, as you say, at least the misery is over in a matter of hours. I don't think the effort to export this standard of service to Amtrak is going to wind up being successful, because two or three days of misery is going to be unacceptable to a much larger share of travelers. "It's better than taking the bus" doesn't strike me as a very promising sales pitch for trips that require more than a few hours of travel.
> 
> I don't really like driving long distances, but with the current food offerings on Amtrak, driving is starting to look like a better option to me, at least for trips I used to take on the Lake Shore or Crescent. And if we want to take another family trip to the west coast, we can take the Canadian (assuming it resumes operation east of Winnipeg and that the border reopens). Or if we have to, we can fly. Or we can just stay home and let our west coast relatives come east, which they would certainly do by flying.
> 
> I don't need "white-glove service and gourmet food," which hasn't been offered on most U.S. trains in 50-plus years. But I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a restaurant-style meal of Applebee's or IHOP quality, which is what Amtrak was offering in its dining cars until the past couple of years. At least that would match the meal quality we'd get on any highway trip.


Exactly right on point. 

Train travel is far lengthier than airline travel... with the potential for offering some excellent scenery viewing that encourages passengers to relax in an environment of a little more room and possibility to get up and stretch. Yes! Food and comfort service on rail travel is appropriate... and on LD... almost safe to say necessary. 

As the old saying goes... what one pays needs to be on par of what one gets in terms of reasonable comfort, amenities, and food. Make no mistake... a restaurant on the rails... or cafe car, or lounge of some sort is part of what one should expect on LD rail travel.

I would like to repeat that again because it is so logical and appropriate! Make no mistake... a restaurant on the rails... or cafe car, or lounge of some sort is part of what one should expect on LD rail travel.


----------



## caravanman

I guess I am looking at things from too European a perspective. We don't have just one train every day, or every two days, but a good choice of trains between major cities, so the idea of one "through, long distance" train is not so important, but a few do exist.
All of my Amtrak rides have been pretty much end to end on all the routes, so I was thinking of how to replicate my long distance trips with shorter segments, and did not take into consideration the issues of folk wanting to travel from one side of an overnight halt to the other. I had forgotten that only one train was available, instead of many options, as I am familiar with in Europe.
Having better food service on the existing Amtrak L.D. network is everyone's hope, some sort of slimmed down cafe car offerings would be adequate for a day time train for me.
As I think we all agree, more trains in general, long distance and city pairs, would be ideal.
My question about L.D. trains, city pair distances, etc has been answered emphaticaly, so thank you all for your contributions.


----------



## Asher

With me it’s always, so much to see and do, so little time.


----------



## MARC Rider

caravanman said:


> Having better food service on the existing Amtrak L.D. network is everyone's hope, some sort of slimmed down cafe car offerings would be adequate for a day time train for me.



Actually, while "simplifying" dining car service *might* be justified (though it could be a lot better than the current flex meals), even for day train use, the cafe car offerings definitely need improvement. At the very least, the national cafe car menu should be similar to the cafe menu on the NEC, and some attention should be made to insure that they don't run out of stuff.


----------

