# The Economist explains: Why don't Americans ride trains?



## CHamilton (Aug 30, 2013)

A pretty good, short primer. Read the whole thing here: http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/08/economist-explains-18




> AMERICA has by far the largest rail network in the world, with more than twice as much track as China. But it lags far behind other first-world countries in ridership. Instead of passengers, most of America's massive rail network is used to carry freight. Why don't Americans ride trains?Rail ridership is usually measured in passenger-kilometres—one passenger-kilometre represents one passenger travelling one kilometre. One 1,000-person train travelling 1,000 kilometres would on its own account for a million passenger-kilometres. Yet American railroads accounted for just 17.2 billion passenger-kilometres in 2010, according to Amtrak, America's government-backed passenger rail corporation. In the European Union, railways accounted for nearly 400 billion, according to International Union of Railways data. When you adjust for population, the disparity is even more shocking: per capita, the Japanese, the Swiss, the French, the Danes, the Russians, the Austrians, the Ukrainians, the Belarussians and the Belgians all accounted for more than 1,000 passenger-kilometres by rail in 2011; Americans accounted for 80. Amtrak carries 31m passengers per year. Mozambique's railways carried 108m passengers in 2011.


----------



## the_traveler (Aug 30, 2013)

Well, you can't blame me. Who else rides a train from KIN to PHL via LAX? :huh: (I have to make up for the ones that don't ride trains! :giggle: )


----------



## RichardK (Aug 30, 2013)

With the skeletal network of Amtrak, you just cannot go many places, except for the NEC, upper Midwest, and California.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Aug 30, 2013)

Some simple reasons for me to not ride Amtrak:

1. Too expensive.

2. Not enough trains, both routes and frequency.


----------



## Alexandria Nick (Aug 30, 2013)

RichardK said:


> With the skeletal network of Amtrak, you just cannot go many places, except for the NEC, upper Midwest, and California.


But when you really look at it, Amtrak wasn't even a glimmer in anyone's eye and people weren't sure what to make of that Hitler guy (hint: he turns out to be a bad egg) when a lot of passenger service was already getting cut.

I'm reasonably sure my home town in western PA lost passenger service on _all three_ railroads before WWII.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Aug 30, 2013)

Alexandria Nick said:


> RichardK said:
> 
> 
> > With the skeletal network of Amtrak, you just cannot go many places, except for the NEC, upper Midwest, and California.
> ...


Which home town? Does this include interurban service, since many interurbans ran in Western Pennsylvania?


----------



## SarahZ (Aug 30, 2013)

1) Not enough routes

2) Not fast enough

3) I have never, ever seen an advertising campaign on TV or the internet (actual ads, not their Facebook/Pinterest/Instagram stuff)

4) See #1 and #2. Repeatedly.


----------



## Eric S (Aug 30, 2013)

Where there are trains, for the post part, Americans do ride trains. And where more trains are provided, more ride trains. Really, the question shouldn't be "why don't Americans ride trains?" but rather "Why aren't there more passengers trains in the US for Americans to ride?" (Or something more elegant than that.)


----------



## the_traveler (Aug 30, 2013)

SarahZ said:


> 1) Not enough routes2) Not fast enough
> 
> 3) I have never, ever seen an advertising campaign on TV or the internet (actual ads, not their Facebook/Pinterest/Instagram stuff)
> 
> 4) See #1 and #2. Repeatedly.


I'll agree with #1 & #2, but I do have a problem with #3. 
While it is true that I live on the NEC so there are ads for Acela, I'm not counting that. I have seen national advertisement campaigns for Amtrak on TV. One such is "The Train Has Arrived", which includes kids playing with toys of planes, cars, etc... and includes lines like "$4 (or $5) a gallon (for gas)" and "... You're 15th in line for takeoff". It then shows a model train going into a tunnel. When it comes out, the shot is of a Superliner, and the VoiceOver says "The Train Has Arrived!"

This was not a local airing commercial (no Superliners on the NEC), but was on a national program (like maybe the World Series or such). I admit there have been very few national ad campaigns, but there have been some.

BTW: I hardly watch TV (3-4 hours a week is very high), yet I have seen these national ad campaigns!


----------



## gmushial (Aug 31, 2013)

SarahZ said:


> 1) Not enough routes2) Not fast enough
> 
> 3) I have never, ever seen an advertising campaign on TV or the internet (actual ads, not their Facebook/Pinterest/Instagram stuff)
> 
> 4) See #1 and #2. Repeatedly.


I wonder about point 3 from the perspective of: most people even if they saw ads, wouldn't understand the fly Amtrak experience - I'm not sure that can be conveyed... so, even if there were ads, I'm not sure they'd connect, ie, flying Amtrak is unrelated to flying any of the flying cattlecars. Also related: today's Amtrak is so different from the Amtrak of the 1980s - the point being, even if somebody had Amtrak experience from then, and they saw ads, they'd not understand today's Amtrak (experience - complete with lounge lizards ;-) ). I suspect the best way to get ridership up, is to offer $50 (or some affordable number like that) ride anywhere you want in 24 hours, and then see if they don't come back for more.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Aug 31, 2013)

SarahZ said:


> 1) Not enough routes2) Not fast enough
> 
> 3) I have never, ever seen an advertising campaign on TV or the internet (actual ads, not their Facebook/Pinterest/Instagram stuff)
> 
> 4) See #1 and #2. Repeatedly.


I disgree with #2. Speed is not really a massive problem with Amtrak, since the slowest Amtrak trains still get filled up. Russian trains are really slow too, but they are still popular. Indian trains aren't much faster. The difference their trains have is that it's cheaper, goes to more places, and runs more frequently. So I think you should add high prices and take out the speed problem.


----------



## sentinal (Aug 31, 2013)

I dont think Amtrak has had regular advertising since the 1980's when you had the old "all aboard Amtrak, all aboard"

Part of the regular problem i hear from people i know who wont take the train. is "it takes too long, why 2 days when i can fly there in 4 hours" too much of a rush and hurry today. I show them pictures I have taken on the train. They think they are beautiful. But do not want to take the time. I cant get them to understand that they train ride is part of the experience of seeing our country . Even my Ex gf who said she supported train travel. but has never ridden it. and wont.

I think another reason people wont. is there are places where you get no cell phone coverage. and "OMG I am not connected to the net. my life it over!!!!" People today also cant seem to be unplugged from the world for a few hours. with out dying


----------



## Texan Eagle (Aug 31, 2013)

Not enough routes because not enough money because not enough riders because not enough routes because not enough money because not enough riders because....


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Aug 31, 2013)

sentinal said:


> I dont think Amtrak has had regular advertising since the 1980's when you had the old "all aboard Amtrak, all aboard"Part of the regular problem i hear from people i know who wont take the train. is "it takes too long, why 2 days when i can fly there in 4 hours" too much of a rush and hurry today. I show them pictures I have taken on the train. They think they are beautiful. But do not want to take the time. I cant get them to understand that they train ride is part of the experience of seeing our country . Even my Ex gf who said she supported train travel. but has never ridden it. and wont.
> 
> I think another reason people wont. is there are places where you get no cell phone coverage. and "OMG I am not connected to the net. my life it over!!!!" People today also cant seem to be unplugged from the world for a few hours. with out dying


Duh, what's the big deal? I've ridden trains (and buses) for hours and days on end. It didn't feel like that long after all. I don't care if I'm disconnected, I'd rather be out riding then browsing the net. That's why I have a lot of black periods when I just totally disappear from the forum and then suddenly comes back. No big deal. These guys will get what I mean when they've taken LD ground transport at least once.


----------



## tp49 (Aug 31, 2013)

Outside of an occasional Amtrak California ad out here I can't remember the last time I saw a national ad campaign by Amtrak. Amtrak definitely advertises on the NEC (even in sports venues including an ad on the boards at MSG for Ranger games). When I lived back east I used to see Amtrak commercials and newspaper ads with some level of frequency.

I can agree with the speed issue as well. I have a lot of business in the LA area. including time at the airport I can be in LA in about 3-3.5 hours by plane. On Amtrak the trip can range from around 8 to 14 hours depending on which way I go. Just based on cost it is generally cheaper to take the train then drive. However, since I generally do a same day return usually with my business in the morning Amtrak is out unless I leave the night before and try to sleep while traveling which for me is very difficult to do. Thus on that route I usually fly. Now if I am still doing this and alive when/if/should the CalHSR begins operating then I would probably switch to that due to time saved traveling from the city to the airport.

Then again if I was still doing the NYC-DC traveling I would take the train as it is faster door to door (even with the LIRR connection) then trekking to LGA to fly to DC. Also frequency of service is much better on the NEC than out here.


----------



## sentinal (Aug 31, 2013)

I agree with you Swadian. for some of us its not a big deal. But to a lot of people in our world today. its a huge imaginary deal. my niece for example lives on her I phone. And if there is the threat of her losing her phone for any reason. oh god you might as well be sending her off to some deserted Island. and even my ex gf was always checking email. twitter, facebook, you name it. I for one can live with out today's technology. Most people in the USA can not imagine a world with out having some gadget in there hand to keep connected. They can not just sit back relax and look out the window, as i do when i am on the train.


----------



## gmushial (Aug 31, 2013)

sentinal said:


> I agree with you Swadian. for some of us its not a big deal. But to a lot of people in our world today. its a huge imaginary deal. my niece for example lives on her I phone. And if there is the threat of her losing her phone for any reason. oh god you might as well be sending her off to some deserted Island. and even my ex gf was always checking email. twitter, facebook, you name it. I for one can live with out today's technology.* Most people in the USA can not imagine a world with out having some gadget in there hand to keep connected*. They can not just sit back relax and look out the window, as i do when i am on the train.


Maybe a sad statement about how lonely their lives really are?? ... personally I'm with you - enjoy being on the train, with cell phone powered down and packed away.


----------



## Alexandria Nick (Aug 31, 2013)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> Alexandria Nick said:
> 
> 
> > RichardK said:
> ...


Butler.

B&LE, B&O, and PRR all had passenger service at one point and there were two interurbans.

PRR ended service in 1938.

Turns out B&O straggled on until 1955 with a single train.

B&LE also made it to 1955, but they were never really a passenger line in the first place.

The interurban lines, which merged at some point, went out in 1931.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Aug 31, 2013)

Alexandria Nick said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> > Alexandria Nick said:
> ...


Thanks, great info! I've found Butler on the map, great to match with some old rail maps to see what was going on back then.


----------



## Anderson (Aug 31, 2013)

I've seen Amtrak Virginia do some advertising work...mainly around Richmond (billboards along I-64 and, I believe, I-95), but also Norfolk now.

On the main topic, Americans don't ride trains because they often fail a three-part test:
-Speed: The train should be at least drive-time competitive (i.e. average speeds in the 60-70 MPH range).'
-Reliability: The timetable has to actually mean something.
-Convenience of schedule: You need enough frequencies that a trip is not primarily dictated by potentially awkward train times. I'd split this into two tiers: One at 4-5x daily trains and another at 8-10x daily trains.

The NEC proper notwithstanding, outside of a few places (RVR-WAS, NYP-ALB, PHL-HAR, SAN-LAX-SBA, and an indefinite chunk of the area around the Capitol Corridor in Northern CA) you don't get to the upper tier of #3. You've got some more places at the lower tier, but these are often hobbled by a failure to fill in certain times (i.e. there's no train to get you from SEA-PDX or vice-versa before 1100/1200; STL-CHI is better, but CHI-STL is worse), which restricts the utility of trains for various kinds of trips. There are also too many places where trains are either slow or where, pardon my language, the timetable generally hasn't counted for [bLEEP]. Hampton Roads actually suffers on both of the latter counts: All too often, Amtrak trains get parked somewhere around Richmond when coming in, and what was an on-time train ends up 30-60 minutes late.

What is perhaps more astounding is that in the last 6-7 years I can count numerous routes that are up 50% or ore without any additional service or, I believe, significant speed increases. Granted, there are those (like the Surfliners) that get "stuck" for various reasons, but let's not forget that there are many lines such as the Wolverines where a "bad" year now would have been a smashing year in the middle of the last decade. Heck, even the Hoosier State is generating a modest flow of traffic...which is saying something for the mess that it is.


----------



## Texan Eagle (Aug 31, 2013)

gmushial said:


> sentinal said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with you Swadian. for some of us its not a big deal. But to a lot of people in our world today. its a huge imaginary deal. my niece for example lives on her I phone. And if there is the threat of her losing her phone for any reason. oh god you might as well be sending her off to some deserted Island. and even my ex gf was always checking email. twitter, facebook, you name it. I for one can live with out today's technology.* Most people in the USA can not imagine a world with out having some gadget in there hand to keep connected*. They can not just sit back relax and look out the window, as i do when i am on the train.
> ...


If members on this forum can stop judging other people's lives just because it happens to be different from their own, that would be great.

I am one of those people that you refer to as having "gadgets always on". Does that mean I have a lonely sad life? Ha, in fact its quite the opposite. I live in city A, my girlfriend lives in city B, my parents live in city C, my job gives me more paid vacation than most of America can dream of, with a caveat that I be available by cell phone if required, and I am perfectly fine with this situation because I have my cell phone and laptop with me, which means when I am on a long train ride, I can spend time chatting with my girlfriend, talk to my parents, read a book, check out news or sports scores and a gazillion other things. Do the "purists" here disapprove these things too? When you supposedly non-lonely-lives people travel by train, do you only and only look out the window from start to end? If that is the case, it is *you* who has a sad lonely life, not me.. but don't worry I won't judge you.


----------



## SarahZ (Aug 31, 2013)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> SarahZ said:
> 
> 
> > 1) Not enough routes2) Not fast enough
> ...


I'm talking about the average Joe. 26 hours from Chicago to ABQ is slooooow. We could drive there faster if we switched off.

Some routes aren't quite so bad. It takes us two hours to drive to Chicago if traffic behaves. The train takes around 2.5.


----------



## SarahZ (Aug 31, 2013)

gmushial said:


> sentinal said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with you Swadian. for some of us its not a big deal. But to a lot of people in our world today. its a huge imaginary deal. my niece for example lives on her I phone. And if there is the threat of her losing her phone for any reason. oh god you might as well be sending her off to some deserted Island. and even my ex gf was always checking email. twitter, facebook, you name it. I for one can live with out today's technology.* Most people in the USA can not imagine a world with out having some gadget in there hand to keep connected*. They can not just sit back relax and look out the window, as i do when i am on the train.
> ...


I wouldn't refer to talking to and checking on friends as "lonely". Some people like to be an active part of their family's and friends' lives.

Andplusalso, I read books on my phone, so while some of you think I'm glued to Facebook, I'm actually brain-deep in a crime novel because I've seen the corn fields in Illinois 93 billion times.

I am getting really, really sick and tired of being judged because I own things that plug into an outlet and actually deign to use them in the seat/room I paid hard-earned money for. It's my vacation. I'll do what I want.


----------



## rainyday6 (Aug 31, 2013)

I think a lot of people have a thing about sharing space and lack of privacy. Buses, trains, pottys. Also, how many people consider the trip part of the vacation? The car solves both problems, it takes you right from your front door to the hotel to the parking lot at Disneyland and that's where the trip starts.


----------



## Ryan (Aug 31, 2013)

Texan Eagle said:


> If members on this forum can stop judging other people's lives just because it happens to be different from their own, that would be great.
> I am one of those people that you refer to as having "gadgets always on". Does that mean I have a lonely sad life? Ha, in fact its quite the opposite. I live in city A, my girlfriend lives in city B, my parents live in city C, my job gives me more paid vacation than most of America can dream of, with a caveat that I be available by cell phone if required, and I am perfectly fine with this situation because I have my cell phone and laptop with me, which means when I am on a long train ride, I can spend time chatting with my girlfriend, talk to my parents, read a book, check out news or sports scores and a gazillion other things. Do the "purists" here disapprove these things too? When you supposedly non-lonely-lives people travel by train, do you only and only look out the window from start to end? If that is the case, it is *you* who has a sad lonely life, not me.. but don't worry I won't judge you.





SarahZ said:


> I wouldn't refer to talking to and checking on friends as "lonely". Some people like to be an active part of their family's and friends' lives.
> Andplusalso, I read books on my phone, so while some of you think I'm glued to Facebook, I'm actually brain-deep in a crime novel because I've seen the corn fields in Illinois 93 billion times.
> 
> I am getting really, really sick and tired of being judged because I own things that plug into an outlet and actually deign to use them in the seat/room I paid hard-earned money for. It's my vacation. I'll do what I want.


A-FREAKING-MEN.

The article talks about our massive rail network, but seems to ignore the fact that passenger service isn't available over the vast majority of it. "Americans don't ride trains" is a gross oversimplification and borderline incorrect, IMO. We do ride the trains we have - the biggest single impediment to using more trains is availability.


----------



## Shortline (Aug 31, 2013)

For what it's worth, there's been advertising here in OKC, for our little Heartland Flyer, billboards pop up around the city from time to time, and I just heard a radio ad yesterday, for the "Big Game Train" for the OU TX game. Trying to justify a trip leaving the day after, it's nice to have a SSL on the Flyer!


----------



## gmushial (Aug 31, 2013)

Texan Eagle said:


> gmushial said:
> 
> 
> > sentinal said:
> ...


Sorry, but obviously a reading comprehension problem here: sad never came into my assessment; and no, I don't stare out the windows - though I do enjoy the views: they are one reason I fly Amtrak vs one of the flying cattlecar services - but I do interact (face-to-face) with the people around me (generally on trains referred to as friends that one hasn't met yet) vs living in an insular world unaware of the world immediately around oneself. My sympathies go out to you. And yes, texting or talking is better than no contact, but is miles short of real human interactions and real human contact... that must be a deep and profound relationship you must have with your "girlfriend." Sad. And no, I won't judge you, but will feel sorry for you - how about turning of the box and try some real interactions with real people... think about it - in the meantime I'm off to a Saturday morning breakfast with friends [just think about it: a group of eight or nine real human beings, sitting around a table, sharing each other's company, interacting with each other, while sharing a protracted breakfast and mutual interests in history, gardening, classical music (the oboe is my nemesis) and the outdoors].


----------



## gmushial (Aug 31, 2013)

SarahZ said:


> gmushial said:
> 
> 
> > sentinal said:
> ...


Sarah - my hat's off to you, and yes I find others with their Kindles - I'm always happy to see people stretching their brains [and from your previous posts I would expect nothing less from you]... who I feel sorry for are those that for most of the daylight hours are building up their thumb muscles to and beyond Olympic levels, never venturing out of their shells to at minimum observe that there are real human beings around them, and just maybe interacting with them - even if at a trivial level of saying good morning. ... the talking group around where I was sitting on the CZ last week were amazed at the one "gent" that day or night was either killing them angry birds, hunting the wumpus, or occasionally texting - would take a quick glance out the window once an hour (presume to see if he was still on planet earth), but otherwise face glued to the screen, thumbs in overdrive.

[and yes, I do understand that there are those that wish to be left alone, that was their intent upon boarding the train, and such should be very much respected.]

The usage of lonely I make use of is not that of being physically alone, but of being without human contact or interaction or shared experience - that which makes living in a society so much richer than living a la hermit in a cabin deep in the woods by one's self. ... I would note that there were hugs around as the people of this spontaneous group left the train; and since getting off, two of them I've since been in contact with - as the expression goes: they were merely friends that I simply hadn't met yet, and will make every effort to see them again, even if it involves six hour drives to do such... people are special, interactions with people even more special.

Bottom line: I don't think anyone is judging YOU harshly - the world isn't black or white, and yes such devices are useful and do have a place... and as they say in the PCT (Pacific Crest Trail) community: HYOH (hike your own hike).


----------



## Slasharoo (Aug 31, 2013)

Wow, Gmushial, doubling down. I'm not really part of your world and I'm ok with that.


----------



## Nathanael (Aug 31, 2013)

Alexandria Nick said:


> I'm reasonably sure my home town in western PA lost passenger service on _all three_ railroads before WWII.


As you found out, it was actually the 1950s where the last service disappeared. Same is true in most of upstate NY -- there was a comprehensive passenger rail network still going until the mid-50s, although it was being run with more and more dilapidated equipment.

What happened in the 50s which killed the passenger rail system? Probably the Interstate Highways.

Anderson is correct on why most Americans don't ride trains, but he did leave out reason #1:

- Existence. If the train doesn't go that way, you can't ride it. For instance, just try to get to Detroit from the east.

I believe the second-most-important reason, #2, is:

- Reliability: people will tolerate a lot if the train operates exactly to schedule. If a route which had poor schedule adherence achieves goods schedule adherence for a year or so, this is documented to raise ridership by a lot -- and vice versa if schedule adherence drops.

Reasons #3 and #4 are speed and frequency, and I'd put them at comparable importance: you need some of each.


----------



## Texan Eagle (Aug 31, 2013)

gmushial said:


> Texan Eagle said:
> 
> 
> > gmushial said:
> ...


Wow, just wow. If moderators would allow it I would just reply to this with a four letter word starting with F.

Who the heck do you think you are to make a judgement about what kind of relationship I share with my girlfriend and what does that even remotely have to do with discussions on this forum?

Also what makes you think just because I have an electronic device, I do not interact with "real" people? I have done enough and more journeys where I have spent good time with folks in the Dining Car at all meals and in SSL, having an electronic device with me does not take away any of that. Seriously, keep your **** opinions to yourself.


----------



## MrFSS (Aug 31, 2013)

Texan Eagle said:


> gmushial said:
> 
> 
> > Texan Eagle said:
> ...


OK - both of you - lets calm down. Please - back to the topic at hand.

Thanks!!


----------



## John Webb (Aug 31, 2013)

I don't know what the Economist has been smoking, but Amtrak just reported it's highest monthly ridership ever! True, that number would be even higher if the capacity was there.

But the political class refuses to recognize the new popularity of rail travel and won't provide the needed infrastructure to expand. It's no accident that the folks who have to make that decision almost always drive or fly (often first class with "express" check-in). They have no real-world awareness of the bursting at the seams public transportation issues.


----------



## sentinal (Aug 31, 2013)

What did i start?

It was not my intention to cast judgement on peoples lives. I was simply attempting to make an observation as to some of the reasons people don't embrace train travel. from being in too much of a hurry and not wanting to take the time. from not wanting to be out of "contact" with world. using the very excuses I have been told as to why the people in my life. don't take the train


----------



## Barciur (Aug 31, 2013)

Keep in mind that some people simply can't afford to 'waste' the time on the train vs flying. 6 hour flight to California vs 80 hour train ride (if on time) from Philadelphia to California? If you have the time and a job that allows that, great. But some can't do it - that's over 3 days one way. You can fly there for 3 days and come back, and if that's all you can do because you have to be back at work, it's a no brainer to fly, unfortunately.

I wish our world wasn't as fast paced as it is, so that everyone could simply get on the train and enjoy a 3 day ride without worrying about wasting precious vacation days etc. But that's not the way it is any more, sadly.

If there was a train through Alaska and the Beiring Strait and through all of Russia to Western Europe, I'd take that over flying. Probably only one way, though, but would still want to do that.  But that's me!


----------



## gmushial (Aug 31, 2013)

Slasharoo said:


> Wow, Gmushial, doubling down. I'm not really part of your world and I'm ok with that.


Camping, cycling and train... just might be. ;-)


----------



## gmushial (Aug 31, 2013)

Nathanael said:


> Alexandria Nick said:
> 
> 
> > I'm reasonably sure my home town in western PA lost passenger service on _all three_ railroads before WWII.
> ...


Have to agree that the interstate highway system did throw a monkey wrench into the works - where the operative change was: with a car and good roads, one could set their own schedule and route - hard for a train, bus or even airline to do that. Additionally the car added a change to the transportation model, ie, with a train, the train ride was part of the vacation; whereas with the car, it was a means to get to the vacation. So... two competing models, two different models.

But if one accepts the two models, and assuming that people aren't trying to make the train somehow emulate the car model, one has to wonder if point one is a show-stopper, ie, not enough trains going from A to B - maybe one takes a train close to B, enjoys the experience of that leg of the vacation, and then rents a car to finally get to B. For me to get to the CZ is a almost three hour drive, but that really doesn't lessen the pleasure of the experience.

Again, if one accepts the train ride is part of the vacation, does it matter that much if the train is two hours late? If this is a commuter train, clearly then that's important. But if one assumes that those that need to be somewhere at time x, they're probably going to take a flying cattlecar or a car; leaving those that might be less sensitive (one would think).

It seems that pts three and four are akin to point one: if one doesn't need to be somewhere by x, then one can be flexible to an extent and not have such detract.

For me, I'm wondering if a point five isn't most important, ie, the quality of the experience. If it's armpit-to-armpit, then that's potentially off-putting. If it was Amtrak of the 80's... it took me three decades to trying Amtrak again - Amtrak of the 80's was quite off-putting. Though this might be where cost-benefit comes into play, ie, the perceived value of a ride, must exceed the cost of the experience - the Amtrak experience of the 80's would have required a less than one-dollar price to make it worthwhile... with today's pricing, my impression is that the perceived value is most of the time greater than what one is charged.


----------



## SarahZ (Aug 31, 2013)

I don't blame Texas for talking to his girlfriend over text and phone calls. *They live in different cities.* My boyfriend used to live in ABQ, and we couldn't afford to see each other more often than once every 3-4 months. We talked online, on the phone, and through texts all the time. It didn't mean our relationship sucked. It didn't mean we were lacking personality. It meant we were 1400 miles away from each other and doing our best to make our relationship work. It's painful to be that far away from someone, so of course you want to talk to them as often as possible through whichever means are available.

As for people getting the "thumb workout", some people are introverts and prefer to talk through text or typing. I suck at small talk. I hate sitting in the diner. I don't like hanging out with people at parties because I feel awkward, and that makes me panicky and stressed out. I feel insane amounts of relief when I get to go home and recharge. However, I can talk for HOURS online because I can think about what to say, construct my sentence, edit as necessary, and I don't have to feel the pressure of them looking at me. My boyfriend is the same way. He barely opens his mouth in person, but he emails me all day at work and sends me online messages when we're in our separate offices at home. It's just the way he is, and rather than judge him for it or say he's weird because he doesn't want face-to-face interaction, I accept the way he is and try to understand how to make him more comfortable.

New technology means new ways of communicating, and it is AMAZING to me. I get a little teary-eyed at the iPhone commercial that shows everyone using FaceTime to talk to their friends and loved ones. When I was young, I thought video phones would be the coolest future invention ever, and it's kind of bizarre (and awesome) to realize we have that technology now. I embrace it. Sure, it's a gadget, but if having that gadget means I get to talk to my four-year old niece after her first ballet recital and see her giggling and smiling, then YAY GADGETS.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Aug 31, 2013)

And gadgets are great for the deaf & hard of hearing.

As in most things, generalizations are unacceptable ways to judge & talk about people.


----------



## Anderson (Aug 31, 2013)

I really don't blame people for wanting to take the train so they can sit back, work on their [insert device here], and not have to worry about keeping their eyes on the road. Honestly, it's one of the greatest advantages the train has: It's a very comfortable way to do that.


----------



## Alexandria Nick (Aug 31, 2013)

Nathanael said:


> Alexandria Nick said:
> 
> 
> > I'm reasonably sure my home town in western PA lost passenger service on _all three_ railroads before WWII.
> ...


The real bodyblow was the US routes becoming viable interstate routes. Its not like they built the interstates then waited for everyone to get cars. They already had the cars. I mean, the PA Turnpike went live in 1940. The demand for a limited access highspeed road was already there by the mid 30s.

Improved short haul roads with primitive buses hammered things pretty hard and that was in the 30s too.

Hit submit before I wanted to: yeah, Amtrak is...just terrible at advertising. People back home are always stunned when I tell them I took the train back to Pittsburgh. They don't even know its a thing that exists.


----------



## SarahZ (Aug 31, 2013)

Anderson said:


> I really don't blame people for wanting to take the train so they can sit back, work on their [insert device here], and not have to worry about keeping their eyes on the road. Honestly, it's one of the greatest advantages the train has: It's a very comfortable way to do that.


Ditto. I wish there were a train to my parents' town, even if it took a bit longer than driving. I much prefer to let Amtrak "drive". I'd probably visit more often if I could take the train, especially in the winter. I hate being stuck in the car for longer than an hour.


----------



## gmushial (Aug 31, 2013)

SarahZ said:


> I don't blame Texas for talking to his girlfriend over text and phone calls. *They live in different cities.* My boyfriend used to live in ABQ, and we couldn't afford to see each other more often than once every 3-4 months. We talked online, on the phone, and through texts all the time. It didn't mean our relationship sucked. It didn't mean we were lacking personality. It meant we were 1400 miles away from each other and doing our best to make our relationship work. It's painful to be that far away from someone, so of course you want to talk to them as often as possible through whichever means are available.
> As for people getting the "thumb workout", some people are introverts and prefer to talk through text or typing. I suck at small talk. I hate sitting in the diner. I don't like hanging out with people at parties because I feel awkward, and that makes me panicky and stressed out. I feel insane amounts of relief when I get to go home and recharge. However, I can talk for HOURS online because I can think about what to say, construct my sentence, edit as necessary, and I don't have to feel the pressure of them looking at me. My boyfriend is the same way. He barely opens his mouth in person, but he emails me all day at work and sends me online messages when we're in our separate offices at home. It's just the way he is, and rather than judge him for it or say he's weird because he doesn't want face-to-face interaction, I accept the way he is and try to understand how to make him more comfortable.
> 
> New technology means new ways of communicating, and it is AMAZING to me. I get a little teary-eyed at the iPhone commercial that shows everyone using FaceTime to talk to their friends and loved ones. When I was young, I thought video phones would be the coolest future invention ever, and it's kind of bizarre (and awesome) to realize we have that technology now. I embrace it. Sure, it's a gadget, but if having that gadget means I get to talk to my four-year old niece after her first ballet recital and see her giggling and smiling, then YAY GADGETS.


An erudite response, as always. ... as someone that lives in the technology world: when technology improves lives "YAY GADGETS," but when it interferes, then at least myself, I find the need to question the appropriateness/usage. Though I do worry about a world where a seemingly large percentage of the population has lost or never developed the ability to interact directly with other members of the society - or at least I worry about where such a society is heading (and how easy such a society might be manipulatable/mislead)... but that's a different topic.


----------



## SarahZ (Aug 31, 2013)

Some of those people may be introverts, though. It's hard to generalize. On the train, I sometimes see a lot of people keeping to themselves, but when we go to Chicago and such, there are people laughing and talking and hugging everywhere we go, so it could just be the train environment itself, not that those people are locked into Cyberworld.

Lots of people ride the train to relax. There are people who like to meet others on the train and ride it for that reason (and I'm sure you see a lot more of that on this forum since we all love trains), but out in the big world where alllllllll the people are, I'm sure more people see it as just another method of transportation, like flying or driving. So it might seem weird to US that some people aren't actively social on the train, but if you think about it from a non-foamer standpoint, it's really not that weird. I keep to myself on the train and keep my voice to "library level" when talking to B, but when B and I are out and doing things, I'm much more talkative and gregarious and hyper.

Basically, I don't care how other people act or what gadgets they play with as long as they are courteous about it (i.e. using headphones, ending a call before talking to the person at the counter, not texting during Thanksgiving dinner, etc). But that all goes with common courtesy, not so much the gadgets themselves.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Aug 31, 2013)

Alexandria Nick said:


> Nathanael said:
> 
> 
> > Alexandria Nick said:
> ...


Yeah, I'm annoyed at all this lack of advertising. Maybe Amtrak thinks that demand is already too high for capacity to cope with, so they won't advertise until they get more cars, but they should still give it a try. I'm sick and tired of Greyhound's lack of advertising, Southwest and Megabus are always advertising to scream for passengers and we don't do respond with anything about it.



SarahZ said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> > SarahZ said:
> ...


Why's it so slow? You would have to drive on US Highways to get to ABQ and you can't drive very fast on those. Unless you're talking about the detour route through St. Louis and Oklahoma City.


----------



## Donctor (Aug 31, 2013)

Here in Vermont, I sometimes see ads for the Ethan Allen and Vermonter on buses and in newspapers. (And, interestingly, at the airport.) I guess the state wants people riding.

However, if I want to go anywhere that the train goes, the train is _always_ the least convenient option. With new-ish Megabus service to New York, and with travel times—particularly on the Vermonter—that simply are not competitive with driving, I honestly doubt I will ever take a train in Vermont again. The train station here is not actually in the "city" and does not yet have daily bus service. The train serves ESX at inconvenient times, and is additionally not timed to accommodate long-distance travel and connections. Add to that the lack of checked baggage, and you've sold me on almost any other form of transportation.

I love trains. I will frequently plan trips around rail travel segments. It takes a lot to get me to stop riding. But the Vermonter simply isn't practical.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Aug 31, 2013)

Donctor said:


> Here in Vermont, I sometimes see ads for the Ethan Allen and Vermonter on buses and in newspapers. (And, interestingly, at the airport.) I guess the state wants people riding.
> However, if I want to go anywhere that the train goes, the train is _always_ the least convenient option. With new-ish Megabus service to New York, and with travel times—particularly on the Vermonter—that simply are not competitive with driving, I honestly doubt I will ever take a train in Vermont again. The train station here is not actually in the "city" and does not yet have daily bus service. The train serves ESX at inconvenient times, and is additionally not timed to accommodate long-distance travel and connections. Add to that the lack of checked baggage, and you've sold me on almost any other form of transportation.
> 
> I love trains. I will frequently plan trips around rail travel segments. It takes a lot to get me to stop riding. But the Vermonter simply isn't practical.


Well if you're not ganna take a train, at least don't ride Megabus. Take Greyhound, drive a car, fly in a plane, just don't take Megabus!


----------



## I always rode the Southern (Aug 31, 2013)

Alexandria Nick said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> > Alexandria Nick said:
> ...


I grew up in butler and my memory is somewhat foggy after so many years. But though my Dad usually drove us to Pittsburgh, I remember at least one time taking the train from Butler to Pittsburgh and then on to Cincinnati to catch either the Ponce De Leon or the Royal Palm to head to Ga.. We lived on the South Side and could easily walk to the station which was on Center Ave, below the viaduct. Very, very few passenger trains came through that station even in the early 50's.


----------



## Slasharoo (Aug 31, 2013)

Alexandria Nick said:


> Nathanael said:
> 
> 
> > Alexandria Nick said:
> ...


Nick, on the money...just imagine how much better on time performance, and routes, there would be if we double tracked important rail routes like we did major highways?


----------



## SarahZ (Aug 31, 2013)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> Alexandria Nick said:
> 
> 
> > Nathanael said:
> ...


St. Louis - OKC is the main route for driving, not a detour route. It takes 17.5 hours at an average speed of 75 mph. Compared to 17.5 hours, 26 hours is long, especially when you're snaking through the Raton Pass at 20 mph.

If HSR were possible, the train could get from Chicago to ABQ in just over 12 hours at an average speed of 110 mph.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Sep 1, 2013)

SarahZ said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> > Alexandria Nick said:
> ...


As far as distance goes, the OKC route would seem line a detour. The shortest route by distance would be US Route 54 or Us Route 56. Besides, do you really expect to drive on the Interstate at an average speed of 75 mph? The average would be more like 60 mph. Many speed limits in Illinois are 65 or lower!


----------



## jebr (Sep 1, 2013)

SarahZ said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> > Alexandria Nick said:
> ...


Google Maps is stating 19 hours and 5 minutes, with 1,334 miles. That assumes a speed of around 69.75mph, which is pretty reasonable (and probably true if you drove non-stop right at the speed limit.) I don't think doing it in 17.5 hours is feasable...19's probably the fastest it could be done even averaging 75MPH, as there'd be some stops for gas (probably 4-5, depending on the size of your tank.)

Granted, a six-hour difference is still quite large (assuming a 20 hour trip, after breaks and meals, versus 26 hours,) but I'd imagine that Amtrak would beat driving solo in terms of time used, as it'd be hard to drive virtually non-stop for 20 hours. Heck, unless you're really trying to push it, doing 20 hours even swapping drivers would be rough. For those long-distance markets, I'm not sold that the time difference between driving and taking the train is the breaking point...it'd likely be more cost issues or a convenience issue.


----------



## Shawn Ryu (Sep 1, 2013)

Maybe privatiizing Amtrak is the answer, since politicians love taking money from privately owned corporations, and Amtrak doesnt give them any money.


----------



## SarahZ (Sep 1, 2013)

Swadian, I wouldn't use state highways. I'd drive the interstate the entire way to take advantage of higher speed limits. State highways are only 55 mph.

Also, I did figure in gas stops and such, and I drive 5-10 mph over the speed limit. Always. The speed limit in Michigan is 70, and I usually hover around 77-78 like most of the traffic.

Better example:

Chicago to Orlando for spring break/Disney. I did all of the calculations for gas and such, and we're switching drivers at the gas stops. It's 19 hours.

If we take the train, it's 38 hours. No way would we take the train. The route is indirect, and it takes twice as long.


----------



## Anderson (Sep 1, 2013)

I tend to agree...under most circumstances, CHI-ABQ is likely to be split over significant parts of two days if driving. You're looking at about 18-20 hours of "straight driving", and on top of that you're also looking at any stops (which is probably going to put you at the upper end of that 20 hour range).

The longest one-day run I can recall was roughly Bessemer, AL-Pittsburgh, PA with a brief side-detour in GA. I think I was on the road or in stops about 14-15 hours in a row that trip...and that was blasted well near my limit. Mind you, I lost some time in rush hour traffic in Atlanta, but I also basically collapsed at my hotel in Pittsburgh when they (mercifully) let me check in that morning. The next-longest run was Newport News to New Hampshire via Baltimore, Philly, and Albany (picking up friends along the way) in early 2008. Even rotating drivers, it was about a 14 hour saga (involving picking one friend up at ALB) and we were all exhausted at the end.

20 hours on the road is not something I would be capable of, and I would not be comfortable doing a rotation for that long considering that I don't sleep well in a car as a rule. So the odds of me beating the Chief on a run to (or beyond) ABQ from CHI are pretty slim, regardless of route.

The general rule seems to me to be that if Amtrak has a direct route, they can hold their own against driving on the LD front. They may not win on a strict time trial (not to mention often only having one train per day), but with other variables taken into account they have a decent case. When the route is indirect (witness CHI-ORL as an easy example), things get a bit trickier.


----------



## Guest (Sep 1, 2013)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> Yeah, I'm annoyed at all this lack of advertising. Maybe Amtrak thinks that demand is already too high for capacity to cope with, so they won't advertise until they get more cars, but they should still give it a try. I'm sick and tired of Greyhound's lack of advertising, Southwest and Megabus are always advertising to scream for passengers and we don't do respond with anything about it.


Amtrak's marketing budget isn't just used for advertising, various initiates such as Wi-Fi come out of it as well. What would your prefer they spend the money on?


----------



## Ryan (Sep 1, 2013)

Agreed - advertising isn't the problem when trains are running mostly full so often.


----------



## gmushial (Sep 1, 2013)

I guess the comment I'd offer is: there is getting from A to B, and there is seeing what there is between A and B, and then seeing B. The reason I was on the CZ a week and a half ago, was that I had driven my oldest and her car back to KSU for her to return to school for the fall semester. While it is possible, and have done it, to drive from RDD to KSU in two 13 hour days - we spent four days getting her back there, turned a 1800 mile trip into a 2700 mile trip, rarely got to that night's motel before 11pm, one night as late as 130am... but we saw a good chuck of America well north and well south of I-80... of course the Black Hills of SD are btwn RDD and KSU; sure Dinosaur NM is btwn RDD and KSU; sure Rocky Mtn NP is btwn RDD and KSU; likewise the Powder River coal fields, likewise Smith Falls NE, likewise etc etc. And equally, yes, I could have flown back from KSU to RDD in 6 hours, but the 38 hours on the CZ was part of the adventure, a very worthwhile part.

The point being: yes Amtrak can try to compete with the flying cattlecars in terms of time (not going to win), and on price (will probably win); or against the car... but what they have to offer is something different, something that yes gets one from A to B, but much more than simply that.


----------



## Alexandria Nick (Sep 1, 2013)

Slasharoo said:


> Alexandria Nick said:
> 
> 
> > Nathanael said:
> ...


I don't think it would have any impact at all, really. Other than huge maintenance requirements on a lot of slack capacity.


----------



## amamba (Sep 1, 2013)

I have a lot more vacation time than my H. One of the reasons we are able to take the train together is that he can work from the train as long as we have cell service. It has been great - he wouldn't be able to work like that if we were driving. 

And I do have to add that I used to see amtrak commercials on all the time - in particular the one that the_traveler mentioned with the small children.


----------



## Nathanael (Sep 1, 2013)

Alexandria Nick said:


> Slasharoo said:
> 
> 
> > Nick, on the money...just imagine how much better on time performance, and routes, there would be if we double tracked important rail routes like we did major highways?
> ...


On the contrary, it would help a great deal. Caveat: which routes are important? The New York - Chicago routes could certainly use more tracks, and double-tracking is currently funded near Schenectady. Between Portland and Seattle, and between San Diego and Los Angeles, double tracking, and even sections of triple-tracking, are being funded. It's needed for good passenger service and it will be used.
The transcontinental routes are not the ones which need extra tracks.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Sep 1, 2013)

Nathanael said:


> Alexandria Nick said:
> 
> 
> > Slasharoo said:
> ...


The problem is that NYP-CHI is not one of those small corridors. This route is much longer and dosen't have frequent service. With another one or two daily trains on the route, then double-tracking would be feasible.



SarahZ said:


> Swadian, I wouldn't use state highways. I'd drive the interstate the entire way to take advantage of higher speed limits. State highways are only 55 mph.
> Also, I did figure in gas stops and such, and I drive 5-10 mph over the speed limit. Always. The speed limit in Michigan is 70, and I usually hover around 77-78 like most of the traffic.
> 
> Better example:
> ...


But US Routes are not state highways! And you can actually go pretty fast on the ones in the desert. It's all straight for miles, so just make sure not to veer off the road. If you insist on speeding, then there's also less police out there. But speeding is cheating, you have to follow the speed limit to be fair with Amtrak who also follows the speed limit.

And of course Chicago-Orlando has been terrible on Amtrak ever since the Floridian got cut. Me personally would take a Greyhound bus. 26-28 hours is not bad considering the bus has to follow speed limits, make stops, refuel and clean, transfer buses, and account for timetable padding. If taking the itinerary with only 1 transfer, the layover at Atlanta alone takes up 4.5 hours, plus two cleaning stops adding up to 2 hours, so it's only 21.5 in the end. Not bad for a bus.

I would like to state no intention to make this thread off-topic into buses again. I am only saying this to show that speeding is cheating, and that Amtrak is not that slow of a transport option, but it does cost a lot for a ticket.


----------



## jis (Sep 1, 2013)

New York to Chicago via the ex NYC route is double track all the way except between Albany and Hoffmans, across the Spuyten Duyvil swing bridge and through the Empire Connection tunnel between NY Penn A Interlocking and CP Empire, a short bit around Cleveland for interchange from NS to CSX through the Lakefront Station, and a short segment between Porter and Chicago.

The Albany to Hoffmans portion is in the process of getting double tracked.

Also NY State is in the EIS process to triple track most of it in NY State, progressively. They are trying to decide what the max speed would be for the third track.


----------



## PRR 60 (Sep 1, 2013)

I believe Portland (OR) to Seattle is double track all the way.


----------



## Nathanael (Sep 1, 2013)

PRR 60 said:


> I believe Portland (OR) to Seattle is double track all the way.


Nope. Nelson Bennett Tunnel in Tacoma. The Point Defiance Bypass is supposed to fix that: although the Bypass itself won't be double-tracked all the way, putting freight on one route and passengers on another has much the same effect.


----------



## Anderson (Sep 1, 2013)

In all fairness, the NYP-BUF and CLE-CHI sections could use both additional passenger service and additional track capacity. You also have some other areas like RVR-WAS, CHI-MKE, etc. where capacity constraints are a _major_ roadblock.

Edit: To explain, I know NYP-BUF is almost all double-track or more...but that doesn't mean that double track always cuts it. Ditto CHI-MKE...the double track segments in Metra territory aren't quite enough.


----------



## jis (Sep 1, 2013)

As I mentioned above, additional track capacity for NYP - BUF is in the works. As for CLE - CHI well, I am currently not holding my breath on that one.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Sep 2, 2013)

Anderson said:


> In all fairness, the NYP-BUF and CLE-CHI sections could use both additional passenger service and additional track capacity. You also have some other areas like RVR-WAS, CHI-MKE, etc. where capacity constraints are a _major_ roadblock.
> Edit: To explain, I know NYP-BUF is almost all double-track or more...but that doesn't mean that double track always cuts it. Ditto CHI-MKE...the double track segments in Metra territory aren't quite enough.


Since most of the New York Central's main line from NYP to CHI is already double-tracked, then OTP should be pretty good for the LSL. Adding a third track would b overcapacity along much of the route. Another train on the route is most definately going to be popular, but no one's trying to do it right now.


----------



## Anderson (Sep 2, 2013)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > In all fairness, the NYP-BUF and CLE-CHI sections could use both additional passenger service and additional track capacity. You also have some other areas like RVR-WAS, CHI-MKE, etc. where capacity constraints are a _major_ roadblock.
> ...


It depends on where you're looking. If we're talking about upstate NY (i.e. ALB-BUF), there's likely a capacity need, especially with the desire to run trains over 90 MPH. BUF-CLE, probably not so much...and then west of there, who knows.


----------



## Texan Eagle (Sep 2, 2013)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> Nathanael said:
> 
> 
> > Alexandria Nick said:
> ...



These are very very long distances, a point where flying makes more sense than either Amtrak or bus, so for once if we keep these aside, and look at the moderately long journeys- 4-8 hours in length.. outside of NEC and some Midwest segments, driving ends up being much faster than current Amtrak schedules and as long as that situation exists, not many people apart from us train lovers will ever think of Amtrak as their first choice of travel.

Some examples-

San Francisco Bay Area to Los Angeles- 7 hours driving, including a rest stop and traffic. 11 hours by Coast Starlight.

Dallas/Fort Worth to Austin/San Antonio - 3.5-5 hours driving. 7-9.5 hours by Texas Eagle

San Antonio to Houston - 3 hours driving, 5 hours by Amtrak

There are such examples across the country where it is difficult to justify to non-railfans why to take Amtrak when they can do door to door travel much faster by car.


----------



## Anderson (Sep 2, 2013)

Yes, but at those long distances you can still find yourself looking at substantial cost savings. Taking CHI-ABQ, it's hard to find a direct flight for under about $450 while with a connection you're burning most of a day in the air. Amtrak is generally $140 with no discounts one-way ($280 r/t), or about $125 with AAA ($250 r/t); there are rather few days where the Chief gets pushed much higher (and _very_ few where it's over $176).


----------



## jis (Sep 2, 2013)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> Since most of the New York Central's main line from NYP to CHI is already double-tracked, then OTP should be pretty good for the LSL. Adding a third track would b overcapacity along much of the route. Another train on the route is most definately going to be popular, but no one's trying to do it right now.


So why do you suppose OTP is not as good as it should be? Maybe because the assumption of traffic that is being made is at variance with reality for two tracks at present in the Hoffmans - Buffalo segment? Trust me, a third track is dearly needed for just providing reliable schedule for passenger trains and capacity to add more passenger trains. And if you don't want to trust me, go and sit at Amsterdam Amtrak station (e.g.) for a few hours and watch, to convince yourself.
I have spent considerable time studying the situation, both by myself and also with the ESPA folks who are deeply involved in the NY State - CSX - Amtrak negotiations on these matters. It is not a pretty sight. The fact that the passenger stations have platform only on one track accessible only from one of the mains adds to the congestion and woes, and gums up the fluid flow of traffic each time a passenger train comes by.

One thing is that almost for sure there is going to be no additional passenger trains on the New York State segment between Schenectady and Buffalo without an additional track at least at about half a dozen bottleneck point, and also without some significant track realignment at stations along the lines of what is being done in Rochester. It is currently a basically saturated segment even with double track, and if it is at all possible, oil traffic is making it worse. This is not 1971 when the freight traffic flow on railroads was in decline and there was oodles of free capacity going abegging.

There are also some additional demand for new stations to be taken into consideration, e.g. Lyons to serve the Finger Lakes region. There is also the issue of HL platforms at places like Utica and Buffalo Depew, both possible but will require some significant expenditure to achieve. Schenectady and Rocehster are already getting HL in the station reconstruction. Fortunately, New York State is willing to come up with enough money to match loans or FRA/FTA grants should they become available, unlike some other wonky states.


----------



## Texan Eagle (Sep 2, 2013)

Anderson said:


> Yes, but at those long distances you can still find yourself looking at substantial cost savings. Taking CHI-ABQ, it's hard to find a direct flight for under about $450 while with a connection you're burning most of a day in the air. Amtrak is generally $140 with no discounts one-way ($280 r/t), or about $125 with AAA ($250 r/t); there are rather few days where the Chief gets pushed much higher (and _very_ few where it's over $176).


Check that again. I randomly searched for 1st October. CHI-ABQ Amtrak is $140 and takes 25 hours. Compared to...


$104 Frontier

MDW 8:45a




ABQ 3:11p
7h 26m
1 stop (DEN)


You start in the morning from Chicago, reach ABQ later afternoon. On Amtrak you start in the afternoon, and reach ABQ later afternoon *next day*.

This is way less time than what Amtrak takes, even with 1 stop, but if you insist non-stop..

$232

American Airlines
ORD 8:10p



ABQ 9:55p
2h 45m
nonstop


$232 American Airlines

ORD 9:30a



ABQ 11:25a
2h 55m
nonstop


----------



## cirdan (Sep 2, 2013)

Nathanael said:


> The transcontinental routes are not the ones which need extra tracks.


They do need extra tracks, but not primarily for passenger purposes.


----------



## Anderson (Sep 2, 2013)

(Alright...where'd you go? I went to Orbitz, where I usually go for checks like this, and I _did_ check "Chicago All Airports").


----------



## Texan Eagle (Sep 2, 2013)

Anderson said:


> (Alright...where'd you go? I went to Orbitz, where I usually go for checks like this, and I _did_ check "Chicago All Airports").


Kayak. I always use Kayak since they aggregate results from everywhere, and oh, I specifically *unchecked* Milwaukee (MKE) since you said Chicago.. else there are even cheaper and faster 1-stop options available, like these ones-

$104

Delta
MKE 5:15p




ABQ 9:13p
4h 58m
1 stop (MSP)

$104
American Airlines
MKE 7:00a



ABQ 11:15a
5h 15m
1 stop (DFW)


----------



## SarahZ (Sep 2, 2013)

When I flew to ABQ from Chicago, it was around $250 on American Airlines (it was a Friday during spring break) and took just under three hours. I believe I left Chicago around 10:30 and got to ABQ at 12:15 local time. I've seen direct flights on Southwest for even less, but B is so terrified of flying that even the best medicine doesn't help.

Taking a vacation on a train is awesome. Using a train to get somewhere is not. There's a difference.


----------



## DET63 (Sep 3, 2013)

"Why don't Americans ride trains?"

Why don't Mexicans or Canadians ride trains? Outside of its own corridor between Montreal and Toronto, how much traffic do Canadian passenger trains get? The transcontinental _Canadian_ runs only a couple of times a week, basically more of a "land cruise" that also provides service to a few remote villages in places like northern Ontario. Meanwhile, how many passenger trains (beyond the Copper Canyon route) run in Mexico? Since the late '90s, passenger rail has been nothing more than a rapidly fading memory in most of Mexico.

It's not just the Americans that don't ride trains very much anymore. It's all of North America, and I would guess that much of Latin America (besides Mexico) also prefers to travel by car, bus, or plane.


----------



## CHamilton (Sep 3, 2013)

NARP's response:

Americans *do* ride trains



> Contrary to _The Economist’s_ findings, Americans are riding trains in greater numbers than ever before. Despite the blog’s claim, Americans *do not *need to wait for the future opening of California High Speed Rail to see the success and utility of passenger trains.Observing rail’s success is as simple as a trip to your local Amtrak station at train time. The crowds speak for themselves.


----------



## VentureForth (Sep 3, 2013)

SarahZ said:


> 1) Not enough routes2) Not fast enough
> 
> 3) I have never, ever seen an advertising campaign on TV or the internet (actual ads, not their Facebook/Pinterest/Instagram stuff)
> 
> 4) See #1 and #2. Repeatedly.


As of right now, there are 1,564 trains carrying passengers in India. And it's the middle of the night.


----------



## jis (Sep 3, 2013)

VentureForth said:


> SarahZ said:
> 
> 
> > 1) Not enough routes2) Not fast enough
> ...


Yeah. Some of the trunk routes seem to have as much traffic in the middle of the night as the NEC has during rush hours!


----------



## gmushial (Sep 3, 2013)

VentureForth said:


> SarahZ said:
> 
> 
> > 1) Not enough routes2) Not fast enough
> ...


An excellent graphic (display of a complex system) - thanks for posting the link


----------



## Texan Eagle (Sep 3, 2013)

VentureForth said:


> SarahZ said:
> 
> 
> > 1) Not enough routes2) Not fast enough
> ...


Compare that with this- over 7,200 flights currently in the air over United States.






Shows what is the preferred mode of transport among the population in different countries.


----------



## Anderson (Sep 3, 2013)

jis said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> > SarahZ said:
> ...


This is getting a little off-topic, but I'm wondering where I'd find out about a specific train that piqued my curiosity...namely 14055/14056 (the Brahmputra Mail). It stands out as it runs from the far eastern end of India to Delhi over several days (and, it seems, about 2500km).


----------



## Texan Eagle (Sep 3, 2013)

Anderson said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > VentureForth said:
> ...


The RailRadar site has a search option on the left side of the screen, enter the train name or number and it will show you where the Brahmaputra Mail is currently.

If you want to check out its schedule, erail.in is a clean reliable site. Enter source-destination as "Dibrugarh" and "New Delhi" and it will show up Brahmaputra Mail as one of the available trains (there are three other trains on the route), and you can click "Show Map" to see the entire route of this train with all station stops.

If you have more railfan-like questions, you might want to head to IRFCA Forums and ask there. It's the AU equivalent for Indian Rasilways and has lot more members


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Sep 3, 2013)

From the Indian train tracker, there's both red and blue labels. Does that denote how late the train is?

IR dosen't thave great OTP either, only 67% running on advertised. But Indians still take train a lot more than Americans because they have a lot _more _trains and they're cheap.


----------



## Texan Eagle (Sep 3, 2013)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> From the Indian train tracker, there's both red and blue labels. Does that denote how late the train is?
> IR dosen't thave great OTP either, only 67% running on advertised. But Indians still take train a lot more than Americans because they have a lot _more _trains and they're cheap.


On that map, anything that is not running on scheduled time is in red, if you click some of the red trains, you'll find some of them are running just 15-20 minutes late but still they show up as red while the ones running 3 hours late show up red too. As with Amtrak, these trains also have padding built in, so a lot of those "red" trains will likely end their journeys on time, or pretty close to schedule. The 67% OTP also comes from same metric, I forgot the exact number but I think it is something like anything over 10 or 15 minutes late is not OTP anymore.

Also, the reason for delays are very different than Amtrak. Here in the US, our passenger trains get delayed due to not getting clear track among the freight traffic, while in India, there are so many passenger trains that they are cannibalizing OTP of other passenger trains. The demand is so high that it's a dilemma between deciding whether to have fewer trains that run on time and half the people never get to travel, or give everyone a train to travel but everyone reaches a little late.. and in a democracy whether it is here, or there in India, you very well know what the greed to win votes can make you do. :wacko:


----------



## VentureForth (Sep 4, 2013)

PaulM - It looks like you have your work cut out for ya!  Just kidding. We all appreciate what you've accomplished!

I looked at one of the ads from the rail radar site. Railyatri.in is a neat site that gives a google map of all the stations with "Wisdom" posts. Kinda like Trip Advisor for India Rail Stations. You can comment on local food, lodging, sites to see, etc.



Texan Eagle said:


> ...and in a democracy whether it is here, or there in India, you very well know what the greed to win votes can make you do. :wacko:


Like the Golden Rule: "He who has the Gold, Rules"?


----------



## jis (Sep 4, 2013)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> From the Indian train tracker, there's both red and blue labels. Does that denote how late the train is?
> IR dosen't thave great OTP either, only 67% running on advertised. But Indians still take train a lot more than Americans because they have a lot _more _trains and they're cheap.


We Indians also have much more of a "We will get there whenever we get there" kind of attitude. So that helps too.


----------



## gmushial (Sep 4, 2013)

jis said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> > From the Indian train tracker, there's both red and blue labels. Does that denote how late the train is?
> ...


Sure produces less stress and unhappiness... also may be related to viewing the train ride as part of the "experience" vs merely just a way to get from point A to point B.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Sep 4, 2013)

jis said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> > From the Indian train tracker, there's both red and blue labels. Does that denote how late the train is?
> ...


 Good one jis! Makes me think of the Old Days in Mexico when Passenger Trains were Frequent, much Safer than Buses and Cheap but also SLOW!! (24 Hours Late was the Norm on LD Routes!) Lots of Tourists would be pacing around the Stations and Platforms, checking their Watch, looking down the Tracks etc. Inevibably somewone would ask "When is the Damn Train gonna get here?!" Usually an Indian (Mexico Native)or Campesino waiting in the shade would answer: "When it gets here Senor!" ^_^


----------



## Simon (Sep 4, 2013)

Even so, Amtrak's (and even Indian Railway's) OTP is still better than the shockingly awful OTP of the British railway network. A depressing 31.9% of train services were at least a minute late in the 2012/2013 financial year, and as many as 45.4% of "long distance" services were at least a minute late. To say nothing of trains that were late but by less than a minute.


----------



## jis (Sep 4, 2013)

Neither Amtrak nor any of the commuter agencies report one minute late as late. The cutoff is 10 minutes I believe at least on the NEC. Not sure what it is on LD service.


----------



## Anderson (Sep 4, 2013)

I'm going to assume that someone was somehow being sarcastic.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Sep 4, 2013)

Texan Eagle said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> > From the Indian train tracker, there's both red and blue labels. Does that denote how late the train is?
> ...


What about all the freight in India? How do they get moved around? The latter option would be better to just have everyone arrive a little late. I wouldn't mind unless I had to make a cross-platform transfer between two trains arrving at the same time.

Delays are totally unacceptable in Japan because there's so many cross-platform transfers.



jimhudson said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Swadian Hardcore said:
> ...


Despite all the lateness, I still wish Mexico had passenger trains. Their dominant buses are dangerous and very unreliable, bad drivers and lots of breakdowns. They attempt to cover up the bad situation with large, comfortable seats.



Anderson said:


> I'm going to assume that someone was somehow being sarcastic.


I was going frozen for a sec, good call, Dave.

Edit: Fail!


----------



## Anderson (Sep 5, 2013)

Swadian: The buses are reliable? Or unreliable?


----------



## jis (Sep 5, 2013)

Anderson said:


> Swadian: The buses are reliable? Or unreliable?


They are reliably unreliable


----------



## VentureForth (Sep 5, 2013)

If you were good with Greyhound flying up and down US-40 in Colorado, then you would enjoy ANY Mexican bus ride!


----------



## Bob Dylan (Sep 5, 2013)

VentureForth said:


> If you were good with Greyhound flying up and down US-40 in Colorado, then you would enjoy ANY Mexican bus ride!


Todays Mexicann Busses compared to the Bad Old Days are as a 787 compared to a Wright Brothers Flyer! 1,000,000% Better but there is not near the Thrills , Chills and Excitment (read Terror!) that the "Chicken Buses" used to provide!  The Best way to ride on a LD Mexican Bus was to join the Drivers (there were always 2 even if one was 12!!!  ) in getting Drunk, Pass out and hope when you woke up you were still Alive!! :giggle:


----------



## Nathanael (Sep 5, 2013)

Texan Eagle said:


> Shows what is the preferred mode of transport among the population in different countries.


Well, I'd say "preferred mode of transport among the politicians".
Transportation is a strange, capital-intensive, supply-driven business. Very few passenger transportation enterprises are profitable (almost all of those are train services), and as a result people take whatever form of transportation the politicians subsidize.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Sep 6, 2013)

VentureForth said:


> If you were good with Greyhound flying up and down US-40 in Colorado, then you would enjoy ANY Mexican bus ride!


I've ridden Meixcan buses before, I wasn't really impressed with their Dina buses. I rode Turimex Internacional and they were a lot worse then their rating might suggest. I ended up on a G4500, which is also Greyhound's worst bus. Things were malfunctioning a lot on that one. The hate was sealed when the bus broke down and the AC went dead. Autobuses Expreso Futura is better, but again, Mexico really needs those trains back because most their buses are incompetant at providing good service.

Seats and service isn't everything. When your equipment break down in the hot desert with no relief from the heat, there;s gonna be a lot of angry passengers! And I'm pretty sure Meixcan-operated G4500s burn up too, so We Need The Trains Back!


----------



## SarahZ (Sep 6, 2013)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> Nathanael said:
> 
> 
> > Alexandria Nick said:
> ...


Speeding is not "cheating". When someone asks why driving to ABQ would be faster, it's because I average 75 mph and use the interstate instead of driving the slower speed limit on a slower state highway. That's simply fact. *That's* how you compare driving to a train. You don't pretend your vehicle is driving the exact same route as the train (that's ridiculous); you take the faster route because *why* would you take the slower route? That doesn't make sense.

If you asked me how I drive to Ann Arbor, I say, "I take I-94." I don't take side streets and rural highways to match Amtrak's route because that isn't efficient and the speeds are slower.

So, yeah, when I'm comparing driving to Amtrak, I compare my _actual driving_, which means interstates as often as possible to keep my speed as high as possible.


----------



## SarahZ (Sep 6, 2013)

I understand people get a little hurt when someone states why they don't use Amtrak all the time, but seriously... you have to admit that, in most cases, driving or flying is faster and (sometimes) cheaper.

I love Amtrak as much as anyone, but the fact remains that if B weren't terrified of flying, I wouldn't ride any of the LD trains until retirement. I'm sick and tired of using 2-3 extra *days* of vacation time for a trip that would take 2-3 *hours* by plane.


----------



## jis (Sep 6, 2013)

That is true. The only time I take a cross country train is when I specifically want to spend 3 to 6 days riding trains continuously. And that typically happens these days in conjunction with an OTOL or an AU event.

For example, weekend after this coming one, I am going to a rail event in Silicon Valley. I am flying out Friday evening and flying back Sunday afternoon. There is no way I was going to spend best part of two working weeks traveling to and fro for a net two day event, because the days needed would have had to come from my other trip to more interesting and far away locales involving visiting family and friends.

That is not to say that LD trains are not important in general. They provide service between numerous city-pairs other than the end to end city pair, often in places where there is no other public transport service.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Sep 6, 2013)

SarahZ said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> > Nathanael said:
> ...


You don't get my point! I'm saying that those "state highways" are actually US Highways and they do have pretty good speeds on the plains. Again, if you really want to speed, it's harder to get caught on an US Highway than an Interstate. I'm NOT asking you to follow amtrak's route exactly since that is impossible. You know that when I ride Greyhound all those time, I'm NOT following Amtrak's route either.

Interstate 94 to CHI, US Route 24 to KCY, US Route 54 to Tucumcari, and Interstate 40 to ABQ is the most direct way KAL-ABQ. When you consider the fact that on much of the route, you can go overspeed without getting caught, that's when it becomes faster than the other route through OKC. Not that I hate the OKC route, I actually enjoy a bus ride on that route. But if you're going to drive, the above route should be the fastest. And the US Highways are very straight and empty on the desert, so speed is not much of a constraint.

And US Route 54 does not follow the SWC, the SWC roughly follows US Route 50, US 350, and Interstate 25 on the KCY-ABQ section. No road follows it on the CHI-KCY section.

In summary, the speed of Amtrak trains is not prohibitively slow, it's about the same as a car or bus in the same conditions, but the extra expense of the train is the major problem. Train speeds are only really bad in the mountainous areas, which I do know well.


----------



## jebr (Sep 6, 2013)

SarahZ said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> > Nathanael said:
> ...


Except speeding is cheating in terms of a comparison. Taking a faster route is not, but if you're breaking the law to achieve a faster speed than other transportation, that's an uneven playing field.

Yes, driving is often faster than the train if you're able to drive straight through, only stopping for gas and a quick bite to eat, even if you go the speed limit. I don't discount that. But it is unfair to measure driving at a speed higher than is legal.


----------



## gmushial (Sep 6, 2013)

Is speeding really cheating - in that one is comparing the actual travel time of either? If the ambient flow happens to go faster than the posted limit, is that significant? When I'm talking about the commute time to work - does it matter if the flow goes faster than the posted limit (I wish), or slower - what I'm interested in is the time required, no?


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Sep 6, 2013)

gmushial said:


> Is speeding really cheating - in that one is comparing the actual travel time of either? If the ambient flow happens to go faster than the posted limit, is that significant? When I'm talking about the commute time to work - does it matter if the flow goes faster than the posted limit (I wish), or slower - what I'm interested in is the time required, no?


Of course you can go faster if safety dictates, as in if you don't go overspeed then you get rear-ended. That's the same reason why many bus drivers are forced to overspeed to avoid getting hit. But it really is cheating if you're doing it all the time. Amtrak dosen't go over the speed limit, so comparing this _is_ unfair.

Another form of more minor "cheating" would be to travel in the outside lane constantly, even though that lane was originally designed for overtaking vehicles only. Most states have laws restricting constant travel in the passing lane, but many drivers misuse it anyway. This causes dangerous, frustrating situations on the road.


----------



## gmushial (Sep 7, 2013)

I'm sorry - but you're taking a moral or ethical view of this [from which I choose to abstain and not debate]. I believe the question at hand has to do with a train being faster or slower than an auto in traversing from point A to point B. If that is in fact the case, then the operative point is: how long does it take for a car to make that journey [and one as a measure might take either the mean or median value of all the cars which make that journey, and use that value as the point of comparison]. [whether they are law abiding drivers, good drivers or any other adjective you might wish, the question is: how long did It take for them to get there - no more, no less?] [When my GPS says that it'll take 11 hours to go from A to B, and I arrive in 10 hours, while going no faster than nor slower than the flow of the ambient traffic - did I "cheat," or does it mean that in fact I made the journey in 10 hours? Does that mean that most anyone else would likewise make it nominally in 10 hours? I would suspect so, and hence that is the value I'd use in the comparison - gathering statistics is about observation, not prediction... once one has them, then they may/might be used to predict.]


----------



## jis (Sep 7, 2013)

I am with Greg on this one. What matters is what happens reality. Theoretically concocted runtimes are not terribly interesting.

(null)


----------



## Alexandria Nick (Sep 7, 2013)

I call it cheating because the train and the plane can't violate speed restrictions, so why should the car be able to?

Not even from a moral or legal standpoint, but a practical standpoint. How can you make a travel time comparison if you outright allow one of the modes to violate the terms of the "race?" An airliner can't exceed 250 below 10,000. They'd be able to shave a lot of time off if they were able to do 275...


----------



## gmushial (Sep 7, 2013)

Alexandria Nick said:


> I call it cheating because the train and the plane can't violate speed restrictions, so why should the car be able to?
> Not even from a moral or legal standpoint, but a practical standpoint. How can you make a travel time comparison if you outright allow one of the modes to violate the terms of the "race?" An airliner can't exceed 250 below 10,000. They'd be able to shave a lot of time off if they were able to do 275...


The question at hand is: how long does it take in reality to get from point A to point B - not theoretically, but what does the nominal traveler see? Nothing more, nothing less. Yes, planes and trains have strict constraints, but in reality cars sometimes do, and sometimes don't - but that isn't an operative point here. The only question is: if one were to take A from pt A to pt B how long will it take, and then compare the times. [i have to grin a bit: some of the speed limits one see posted are forced on the states by the feds - if you want our money, then you will not post a limit faster than 75mph, period... yet if one does the commute from Tucson up to Phoenix each morning, even though posted at 75, the fast lane runs btwn 85 and 95, the "slow" lane btwn 75 and 80, and the middle lanes somewhere in-between... and the highway patrol travel in the midst of this doing 85 plus plus, not stopping anyone. So: is the highway patrol cheating? Or, merely going with the flow? One see this in many places in the west, where the feds mandate 75 as a max, yet the traffic runs along well above that and no tickets are issued, no body is stopped - saw this in WY, SD and NE two weeks ago; saw it in TX, AZ and NV a couple weeks before that - the question there is: who is more intelligent: the drivers on the road dealing with reality, or some bureaucrat behind a desk in WashDC with a political agenda? I don't think the drivers are suicidal, don't think they're even stupid, don't think they have a death wish - they merely drive at a rate that works for them and everyone else around them. (NV on its open roads, still enforces its ages old safe and sane speed limits, ie, if what one is doing is reasonable, given the circumstances, then it must be right.)

Is it cheating that in a race btwn a horse and a human, that the horse is unable to walk on two legs? Or a race btwn a fish and a human, that the fish has the unfair advantage of being able to swim underwater for protracted periods or time? ie, cars, trains and planes are different entities and as such different realities prevail... but that's the way reality and nature work.


----------



## gmushial (Sep 7, 2013)

A follow up: so, would it suddenly no longer be cheating, if the speed limits were posted to 200 mph yet the cars chose to drive at the same speeds as when they were posted at 75?


----------



## Texan Eagle (Sep 7, 2013)

Alexandria Nick said:


> I call it cheating because the train and the plane can't violate speed restrictions, so why should the car be able to?
> Not even from a moral or legal standpoint, but a practical standpoint. How can you make a travel time comparison if you outright allow one of the modes to violate the terms of the "race?" An airliner can't exceed 250 below 10,000. They'd be able to shave a lot of time off if they were able to do 275...


This is not about "race", the discussion is about practicality, as to why a lot of people in this country prefer to drive over taking Amtrak, and you're not gonna make any new Amtrak fans if you tell them "but if you stick to 65 mph, Amtrak is not much slower". The reply you will always get is- "but why do you bring in this hypothetical thing about sticking to 65? I drive every month from A to B, I go at 70 mph like rest of the traffic and reach in 4 hours while your Amtrak thing takes 7 hours.. I don't care what speed it goes".


----------



## Alexandria Nick (Sep 7, 2013)

I guess because, in my head, a lot of the delays I've experienced with Amtrak were because of slow orders, heat restrictions, and that sort of thing. Saying "driving is faster because the train is slow" because the train has a heavier obligation to obey the law. How many of us are going above the construction zone speed restrictions because we can, despite the heavier fines, when Amtrak can't do that?

I'm a rule follower by nature and I don't like that...up front to say "we're going to break rules and run the chance of getting caught, then building that in to the scenario."


----------



## Ziv (Sep 7, 2013)

I find it sad that in the 21st century we are still admitting that Amtrak LD trains are as slow as automobiles. And nearly as expensive as air travel in a lot of places. IC speeds should be 125 or so and we are stuck for most of the LD routes at 79. That is pathetic. 95 would be decent and 110 would be better, but if Amtrak LD routes could spend a quarter of the trip at 110 and a quarter at 125, we wouldn't be talking about Amtrak being anywhere near the speed of a car on the interstate.

It ain't going to happen soon for the vast majority of the routes in the US, but simply getting half the Amtrak LD routes up to 95 mph would be nice.

But even if the route is rated for 125 mph, it doesn't matter if Amtrak has to slow down for a freight that is doing 60 mph, or less.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Sep 7, 2013)

I'm saying that Amtrak speed is not a *significant* problem for potential travellers. I'm not saying that Amtrak is fast. Back on the original topic, I will say that I ride RNO-SAC-SFD a lot. Here's why I _don't ride_ Amtrak:

Amtrak runs 1 train a day (the CZ) on this route. It takes 5:37 to SAC and costs $45 one-way, per-person. It also takes 8:29 to SFC (Ferryi Building) and costs $51.

Greyhound runs 5 buses a day (Route 540) on this route. They take 2:40 to SAC and costs $5 one-way, per-person. They also take 5:00 to SFD and coss $10.

Now I know these buses are all falling-apart-G4500s, but they are cheap, frequent, and timely. Some of the Limiteds take as little as 2:25 actual time to get to SAC. Sure, the Locals are slower, but still a LOT faster than the train. The buses do get late if those trash G4500s malfunction, or if it has to wait for connecting passengers, but overall it still makes the train a total non-option for me. I've already ridden over Donner Pass on the train multiple times, so I don't need to do it again. And when you sit at the front of the bus you actually get a splendid view as long as the front AC vent is not emitting terrible "G4500 odors" for some weird reason.


----------



## jis (Sep 7, 2013)

One can make all sorts of convoluted arguments that one wants to satisfy oneself, but the fact is that as a matter of reality of driving following normal practices vs. Amtrak trains, in most cases (other than the NEC) for reasonable driving distance Amtrak trains are not competitive with driving times. OTOH, in most cases an Amtrak ride is probably less strenuous on the driver and for a single person driving vs. taking Amtrak very often it will be more fuel efficient and sometimes even cost competitive. Again this assumes that you own a car and the cost of the trip is the incremental cost and not the fully allocated cost. Because no one in reality computes the fully allocated cost to make a trip decision. OTOH, sometimes the trip cost using a rental car can come out to be cheaper than an Amtrak trip too.

So it is complicated.

And of course I know that Swadian will take the trouble to convert almost any thread into a bus thread. So I am not going to touch that part.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Sep 7, 2013)

jis said:


> One can make all sorts of convoluted arguments that one wants to satisfy oneself, but the fact is that as a matter of reality of driving following normal practices vs. Amtrak trains, in most cases (other than the NEC) for reasonable driving distance Amtrak trains are not competitive with driving times. OTOH, in most cases an Amtrak ride is probably less strenuous on the driver and for a single person driving vs. taking Amtrak very often it will be more fuel efficient and sometimes even cost competitive. Again this assumes that you own a car and the cost of the trip is the incremental cost and not the fully allocated cost. Because no one in reality computes the fully allocated cost to make a trip decision. OTOH, sometimes the trip cost using a rental car can come out to be cheaper than an Amtrak trip too.
> So it is complicated.
> 
> And of course I know that Swadian will take the trouble to convert almost any thread into a bus thread. So I am not going to touch that part.


Hey, I'm not _trying_ to convert this into a bus thread, I'm just showing why I don't ride Amtrak nearly as much as I used to.


----------



## Barciur (Sep 7, 2013)

gmushial said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Swadian Hardcore said:
> ...


This is an interesting one. I was shocked when I did a search on Twitter with the search word "Amtrak" and I've seen people say stuff like "this trip is already 40 minutes late I'm never taking Amtrak again!" etc. Honestly.. this is just crazy. What if you get stuck in traffic due to an accident and spend an extra hour on the highway? Never driving again?

I understand complaining about an hour (although not to an extent of saying how shocking it is and never taking a train again..) or 2-3 hours. The longest delay I've ever had was 3 hours (not AMTRAK, the longest AMTRAK delay I've ever had was 20 mins, but I don't ride that much), but maybe it's because of being a railfan that I find this acceptable and will never give up on trains.. but still.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Sep 7, 2013)

Barciur said:


> gmushial said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...


I agree, ranters are really annoying on the Internet. They keep whining about everything. They even whine about stuff that was their own fault. These whiners are a main reason why I don't use Yahoo! Answers anymore!


----------



## Charles (Oct 4, 2013)

I'm just trying to figure out why you guys are all saying it is more expensive... I just got tickets to get somewhere I could not have gone otherwise because it was 72 bucks round freakin trip. Travel time about 1 hour slower than driving, and probably 1/4 of the cost of gas alone. I know it was 1/3 the price to rent a car, about the same as a bus, and so much cheaper than flying it isn't even funny. And instead of being stuck in the drivers seat for 10 hours, I get to be on a train for 11 where I can get up, go to the bathroom, eat, sleep, talk to other people.) I found this topic cause I ran a search after this experience asking "why don't more people ride trains?". Beat taking my car, hands down in every point except an hour longer travel time.


----------



## cirdan (Oct 4, 2013)

gmushial said:


> Is speeding really cheating - in that one is comparing the actual travel time of either? If the ambient flow happens to go faster than the posted limit, is that significant? When I'm talking about the commute time to work - does it matter if the flow goes faster than the posted limit (I wish), or slower - what I'm interested in is the time required, no?


 Isn't that a bit like comparing the cost of buying your groceries in different stores, and saying store X is cheaper because its easier to steal stuff there?

You have to compare legal with legal.


----------



## Anderson (Oct 4, 2013)

cirdan said:


> Isn't that a bit like comparing the cost of buying your groceries in different stores, and saying store X is cheaper because its easier to steal stuff there?
> 
> You have to compare legal with legal.


I know what you're saying about legal and legal, but there's a material difference between "moving violation illegal" and "criminal illegal". Arguably if you want to exclude speeding you'd also want to exclude traffic jams for such a calculation, though the best approach would probably be to use the speed limit as a "base case" and include a "fast" case (i.e. speeding) and a "slow" case (i.e. frequent traffic jams).

To highlight this, driving to Richmond from Newport News (and I recognize that this uses specific locations in each city) should take 1:08 per Google Maps. That's a base case. If traffic is going fast, this can drop under 1:00. If I try this on a Saturday in the summer, this spikes to over 2:00 on a regular basis.


----------



## SarahZ (Oct 4, 2013)

Charles said:


> I'm just trying to figure out why you guys are all saying it is more expensive... I just got tickets to get somewhere I could not have gone otherwise because it was 72 bucks round freakin trip. Travel time about 1 hour slower than driving, and probably 1/4 of the cost of gas alone. I know it was 1/3 the price to rent a car, about the same as a bus, and so much cheaper than flying it isn't even funny. And instead of being stuck in the drivers seat for 10 hours, I get to be on a train for 11 where I can get up, go to the bathroom, eat, sleep, talk to other people.) I found this topic cause I ran a search after this experience asking "why don't more people ride trains?". Beat taking my car, hands down in every point except an hour longer travel time.


Charles - it depends on the route, to be honest. Sometimes flights are cheaper; sometimes the train is cheaper. Sometimes travel time figures in (as in, what is your time worth?)

I agree with you that spending a little more time on the train is better than driving. It takes just a few minutes longer to take the train to Chicago, but it's cheaper than paying for gas and so much better than driving. I LOVE taking the train to Chicago.

On the other hand, for a long-distance trip (like Chicago to Albuquerque, our most common one), the train is almost always more expensive than a round-trip flight, and it takes 26 hours. Don't get me wrong - we love the train - but I get kind of irritated about the time difference sometimes because it means I have to take two extra vacation days. If I'm going to take extra time off, I'd rather spend it with family/friends at our destination instead of traveling.

So yeah... bottom line... it depends.


----------



## bgiaquin (Oct 4, 2013)

Americans do ride trains. Train travel is gaining popularity, not just Amtrak, but also light rail and commuter rail. This economist obviously has not looked at Amtrak's ridership growth over the past few years. If he has, then he must be really ignorant.


----------



## Tennessee Traveler (Oct 4, 2013)

Simply put, where there are passenger trains available, I and people ride. Unfortunately where there are no passenger trains( zero to Nashville, TN), people CAN NOT ride. That is the situations for most of America outside of the East and West Coasts except for Chicago. No can ride a train that does not exist.


----------



## cirdan (Oct 4, 2013)

bgiaquin said:


> Americans do ride trains. Train travel is gaining popularity, not just Amtrak, but also light rail and commuter rail. This economist obviously has not looked at Amtrak's ridership growth over the past few years. If he has, then he must be really ignorant.


 The Economist does not have a reputation for being overly rail-friendly.


----------



## henryj (Oct 4, 2013)

We don't ride them in Texas because we don't have any.


----------



## Ryan (Oct 4, 2013)

Except for the Sunset Limited. And the Texas Eagle. And the Heartland Flyer. And the half million riders.

But other than that, you're completely correct.


----------



## jebr (Oct 4, 2013)

Ryan said:


> Except for the Sunset Limited. And the Texas Eagle. And the Heartland Flyer. And the half million riders.
> 
> But other than that, you're completely correct.


Plus, since he didn't specifically refer to Amtrak, there's also DART, TRE, and possibly other commuter and light rail that I can't think of off the top of my head.



SarahZ said:


> Charles said:
> 
> 
> > I'm just trying to figure out why you guys are all saying it is more expensive... I just got tickets to get somewhere I could not have gone otherwise because it was 72 bucks round freakin trip. Travel time about 1 hour slower than driving, and probably 1/4 of the cost of gas alone. I know it was 1/3 the price to rent a car, about the same as a bus, and so much cheaper than flying it isn't even funny. And instead of being stuck in the drivers seat for 10 hours, I get to be on a train for 11 where I can get up, go to the bathroom, eat, sleep, talk to other people.) I found this topic cause I ran a search after this experience asking "why don't more people ride trains?". Beat taking my car, hands down in every point except an hour longer travel time.
> ...


Amtrak serves a small niche, for the most part, on longer-than-overnight LD travel. Airlines are almost always substantially faster than taking the train, though the train can often be cheaper if you are willing to travel in coach (but not always, and often the difference isn't enormous if the refundability of tickets is not an issue.) However, a very price-conscious customer will likely revert to the bus before taking the train, as bus travel is usually cheaper and can be faster than taking the train.

Of course, part of this is the problem that Amtrak has a _very_ sparse network outside Californa, parts of the Midwest, and the NEC. As but one trip I've been researching (MSP - ATL,) taking the bus is as low as $50 one-way (but does have one non-guaranteed transfer with Megabus in Chicago, though the layover is three hours. Going Greyhound and eliminating non-guaranteed transfers brings the cost to $85 one-way.) Taking the airlines starts in the $160 - $180 each way price range. Amtrak is in the $220ish price range for coach one-way, and takes almost a day longer than the bus and almost two days longer than flying, assuming that I actually make the EB connection to the CL that day (which, recently, is a gamble.)

Granted, this is a bit of an outlier case, but it reflects the difficulties Amtrak has in competing in the LD market. It performs much better over small to medium distances where it can be overall time-competitive with the airlines (after factoring in security and general airport hassle.) _This also includes markets served by LD trains but people travel between midpoints that would be short to medium distances if they were endpoints on their own train_. As but one example, the last couple times I've traveled on the Builder I've talked with a few people who are traveling from MSP to points throughout North Dakota...moreso than I've talked to people taking longer trips.


----------



## henryj (Oct 4, 2013)

Ryan said:


> Except for the Sunset Limited. And the Texas Eagle. And the Heartland Flyer. And the half million riders.
> 
> But other than that, you're completely correct.


I'm in Houston Ryan, the largest city in Texas with a metro pop of 5 million. We have one train three times a week and a bus to Longview. You, on the other hand, are in NY where trains run by the hundreds day and night. There is a huge difference.

Amtrak would have discontinued the Eagle if not for the private organization TEMPO which still supports it even today. They would love to get rid of the Sunset and did manage to chop off the Florida end. The Heartland Flyer is an Oklahoma sponsored train. Texas contributes to maintain our friendship with the Okies.

The subject line was "why Americans don't ride trains". Like I said.......because there aren't any.


----------



## Ryan (Oct 4, 2013)

I'm not in NY, and I know where you are, thanks.

Your statement was factually incorrect. Plenty of people ride the trains you guys have down there (and as Jebr pointed out, there's more than Amtrak to trains in Texas).


----------



## JoeBas (Oct 4, 2013)

I'm in Houston too, and manage a few trips a year.

Whoda thunk?


----------



## SarahZ (Oct 4, 2013)

henryj said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > Except for the Sunset Limited. And the Texas Eagle. And the Heartland Flyer. And the half million riders.
> ...


Houston =/= Texas. That's like saying Detroit (and the metro area) speak for all of Michigan's train pax.


----------



## henryj (Oct 4, 2013)

Well I believe most know exactly what I meant. There are of course a few too dense to figure it out.


----------



## SarahZ (Oct 4, 2013)

I am not dense, thanks. I'm simply stating that big cities don't always reflect the needs of an entire state. Every city counts and matters.


----------



## PaulM (Oct 5, 2013)

Charles said:


> I'm just trying to figure out why you guys are all saying it (rail) is more expensive (than driving)...


It's simple. They think driving a car is recreation which they would expect to pay for. So when when comparing driving to rail, they subtract this cost from the cost of driving. You on the other hand seem to think driving is work, and drudgery at that. So you add your labor cost to the cost of driving.


----------



## jebr (Oct 5, 2013)

PaulM said:


> Charles said:
> 
> 
> > I'm just trying to figure out why you guys are all saying it (rail) is more expensive (than driving)...
> ...


It's not quite that even. I'm not subtracting my time out of the cost of gas or some random amount because I enjoy it. I rather just don't count my time on either one. I also usually don't factor in the cost of owning the car, since most of that is fixed no matter if I only drive to the train station or if I drive all the way to my destination.

Yes, given the choice I'd rather take a four hour train ride over driving four hours. But usually the equation isn't that simple...the train often takes longer outside of the NEC than driving, even after factoring in stops when driving to refuel, rest, grab food, etc. And sometimes I just don't have that additional time to spare.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Oct 6, 2013)

Yes, Americans do ride trains more and more. But I don't ride Amtrak anymore, I still ride trains and I'm still American but I don't ride Amtrak trains anymore. Why? Because Amtrak here is *OUTRAGEOUSLY *expensive!

You must make out the difference, there is a difference between riding "trains" and ridng "Amtrak". There is also a difference between riding one Amtrak and another Amtrak. Sometimes the difference is so huge that no fair argument can be taken on either side.


----------



## Anderson (Oct 6, 2013)

Swadian,

On a cost-per-mile basis, Amtrak is either on par with or cheaper than either VIA (Canada) or the various UK companies. In places like India or China, the cost comparison gets distorted because of low wages in those countries.


----------



## jis (Oct 6, 2013)

Anderson said:


> Swadian,
> 
> On a cost-per-mile basis, Amtrak is either on par with or cheaper than either VIA (Canada) or the various UK companies. In places like India or China, the cost comparison gets distorted because of low wages in those countries.


Or conversely the fares are distorted by unusually high wages in the western countries compared to world medians.  The top 10% effect  One earns more so one pays more.
Also people do forget that the lower class fares (specially suburban fares) at least in India are significantly subsidized as a matter of social and economic policy and political reality both for rail and road transport, directly or indirectly.


----------

