Do we really need HSR for LD?

[jloewen]

You all are talking about heavy use corridors like DC--Atlanta. I've taken the Crescent from DC to ATL and back several times. It does NOT get heavy use. Maybe 30 people on a good day. None of them (but me) traveling for business, from the looks of them and who meets them. Since the trip puts you into ATL at 8:30AM, ready to do business, the question arises, "Why not?" The fact that it may be late is one factor, to be sure, altho I have never BEEN late into ATL. (After ATL, going to Birmingham or Hattiesburg, yes, I've been somewhat late. Also, I concede I may simply have been lucky.)
I don't think business travelers have Amtrak even in the back recesses of their minds, even when it might be time effective and cost effective for them.
Can we fix this? I don't know.

 

[willem]

I don't think business travelers have Amtrak even in the back recesses of their minds, even when it might be time effective and cost effective for them.
Can we fix this?

In 2003, I took a train from the city where I was employed to a city where I would attend an employer-sponsored training class. The travel people had never heard of such a thing and needed to research how to document and pay for it. I had a roomette one way and a bedroom the other, and it was cheaper than the negotiated city-pair fare for the flights. (I had an extra day of travel in each direction, for which I would have needed to use vacation time if they hadn't been weekend days.) I took trains to and from training on a few other occasions, which included vacation time other than travel and personal travel expense due to the train fare being higher than negotiated city-pair flights. To my knowledge, no one else in the office has taken a train for any official (or non-official, for that matter) travel before or since.

 

[Cal]

It has been mentioned that HSR is needed to bring riders back to Amtrak (or any LD train) - but, is that really the case?

Someone linked a video of a trip from NY to LA in another thread. That video makes some interesting observations/points.


One of the things the narrator said (starting at 27:40) is that Amtrak should be viewed as being more than "just a train" - he said it was a combination of:
View attachment 20411

He also extolled the virtues of the "relaxed pace" of the train. It should be noted he is a frequent flier and logs thousands of miles yearly by air. This seemed to be his first coast-to-coast train trip.

It made me think ... while train travel is often compared with the speed of planes or the freedom of driving - maybe it is time to quit "comparing it". Maybe it is time to extoll the virtues of train travel. Point out what it does offer instead of what it doesn't.

Watch the video and see what you think about this subject.

I don't think we need HSR to long distance. First of all, all the best HSR corridors are similar to the Northeast, where they have some large cities in a straight(ish) line, and they are only a few hundred miles apart. This allows them to make a sector of straight track and have competitive times to airlines. Amtrak long distance often spans at least 1,000 miles, and has to traverse mountains. It would be really hard to make it high speed.

And honestly, I think that taking it slow and being able to enjoy the scenery is all we need. It would be nice if we could get higher speeds on some parts of it, and equipment that is more up-to-date. In addition to making better amenities. This would make it truly, more of a land cruise and still transportation. I'd rather have it be that then rushing through America at a high speed.

I'm (mostly) all for short corridor HSR. Would benefit us a lot! Just not long distance.

Also I've been watching Jeb Brooks for a few years, great guy. Was so excited when he took the Chief

 

[Cal]

We need to quit making "slow train travel" a "bad" thing. There are many people who still walk in parks and trails - why walk when you can ride a bike, or even better, a motorcycle ... much faster.

The same is true for LD trains. They don't need to go as fast as a plane - but they need to be more enjoyable then they are now. OTP is essential. Quality food should be served since you have a captive audience for several meals. Comfort and cleanliness is a necessity and friendly attendants who are there to "help" the riders, not just collect a paycheck.

Then, these things need to be promoted as a reason to take the train.

Trains cannot compete with the speed of planes nor the freedom of a car - quit trying to compete on those fronts - offer and promote what a train can offer, not what it can't.

I completely agree with your statement. I just wish that we could get new equipment so it doesn't feel so dated. Make it more comfortable, get traditional (or possibly a bit better even) dining back. Include the little touches that used to make travelling on Amtrak feel so luxurious. Improve OTP. And ensure all staff are consistent. Just make it more of a true land cruise.

Now of course this will not happen ever, or at least not for a very long time. But hey, I can dream...

 

[sttom]

I would say HSR is not something we need at the present moment beyond the current projects that are currently in motion. Given how useless Amtrak is for a lot of city connections, selling Congress or any of the states on a TGV style system would be justifiably a hard sell. It would be a better use of capital funds to nationalize the rights of way of the class 1s, start the process of upgrading them and expand Amtrak service. High speed rail systems in other parts of the world were built after their conventional systems were overcrowded and capacity expansion would have been more expensive than the alternative. We need a better conventional rail system not only to prove that rail could work again which would justify more rail projects.

I would also say we don't really need HSR to revive long distance travel. "Long Distance" has two different definitions, Amtrak defines it as over 750 miles where as the Bureau of Transportation Statistics defines a long distance trip as over 50 miles and not a part of a commute. They also record that a long distance car and train trip are around 190 miles and a long distance bus trip is around 290 miles. Even at 90 mph a 290 mile trip could be done in under 4 hours on a 90 mph train depending on how many stops are made and for how long. A bus could make the same journey in closer to 6 hours. Trains can be an attractive option so long as trains are frequent enough, faster than driving and less stressful. I would also wonder how many people don't take trips because driving is inconvenient. I know I have decided against taking trips because leaving for a 4 hour (without traffic) after work just wasn't worth it to me. If there was a train that I could have taken after work, I would have made the trip.

 

[joelkfla]

The next thing is crossing eliminations. If financing could come from the highway trust fund grade crossing eliminations could proceed if not at warp speed but at least max impulse speeds The construction should be a 24/7 operation. Our local town could raise the tracks over all three grade crossing if the route becomes a offshoot of the Crescent.

Are grade crossing eliminations mandatory for 125mph? Or are quad gates and intrusion detectors adequate?

 

[Cal]

Are grade crossing eliminations mandatory for 125mph? Or are quad gates and intrusion detectors adequate?

I would assume they are mandatory, not sure though

 

[jis]

I would assume they are mandatory, not sure though

Grade crossing with positive barriers, like you see at airport entry points to the secure airside, are allowed above 110mph. But no one really wants to deal with those. So in effect grade crossings are not allowed above 110mph. Quad gate and intrusion detectors are not adequate above 110mph.

 

[Cal]

Grade crossing with positive barriers, like you see at airport entry points to the secure airside, are allowed above 110mph. But no one really wants to deal with those. So in effect grade crossings are not allowed above 110mph. Quad gate and intrusion detectors are not adequate above 110mph.

Well honestly just getting our long distance trains to do 100 (which is the top speed for the superliners) would be great.

 

[toddinde]

HSR is very much a corridor idea, though I am not optimistic that I will live to see it here in the US. China uses HSR for much longer runs, but I think that the market for US transcontinental and even semi-continental travel is going to be biased towards planes, at least unless and until planes are required to pay for all of their costs, including the environmental costs. That might propel folks to consider trains for non-time-sensitive travel.

My view is that higher speed is desirable for long distance trains. My experience living and working in Europe is that the benefit of flying into an airport and easily continuing by rail is huge. Further, I think people make the mistake that the only travelers that matter are going from major cities to major cities. If you’re going say from Topeka to Albuquerque or Denver or Oklahoma City, the train could easily be time competitive and a much more leisurely trip than driving to Kansas City and going by way of DFW or Chicago. Awhile ago, I had to go from Tucson to Lawton, Oklahoma. I flew, but it took as long as driving. The US economy is severely hindered by our extremely poor and deficient rail passenger system in comparison to our peer competitors. If we don’t get going on developing rail, we’re going to be left behind. We can begin by beefing up existing Amtrak service with new equipment, more frequencies on existing lines, strategic expansion of routes, more feeder busses, and then targeted new infrastructure like long stretches of passenger dedicated tracks alongside existing rights of way that could accommodate 110 and 125 mph running. Along with this, investments to reduce choke points that hurt freight and passenger movements. Getting 30 mph running to 50, and 50 to 79 also is a great investment.

 

[Barb Stout]

I completely agree with your statement. I just wish that we could get new equipment so it doesn't feel so dated. Make it more comfortable, get traditional (or possibly a bit better even) dining back. Include the little touches that used to make travelling on Amtrak feel so luxurious. Improve OTP. And ensure all staff are consistent. Just make it more of a true land cruise.

Now of course this will not happen ever, or at least not for a very long time. But hey, I can dream...

I find train travel to be far, far more comfortable than air travel. There is a lot more room, you can walk around, the seats are more comfortable, etc. As far as dated appearance, a lot of the airlines that fly to non-big cities have a dated appearance inside the cabin.

 

[Cal]

I find train travel to be far, far more comfortable than air travel. There is a lot more room, you can walk around, the seats are more comfortable, etc. As far as dated appearance, a lot of the airlines that fly to non-big cities have a dated appearance inside the cabin.

True, but things like the music control don't work. The tray table looks old and is not sturdy, and the climate control sometimes won't work. We would make those things work. Then, we could possibly have free decent-speed WiFi for sleeper passengers, while coach can purchase it for a small fee.

New equipment could also be more like the viewliners, with the upper bunk window and a little more room. And just changes such as this to make the experience better.

Still dreaming though

 

[Cal]

Also like in the roomette, we could probably remove the closet thing and just put shelves there. Not many people use the closet. There could be an outlet by each seat, so that we don't need to bring a power strip.

 

[Barb Stout]

True, but things like the music control don't work. The tray table looks old and is not sturdy, and the climate control sometimes won't work. We would make those things work. Then, we could possibly have free decent-speed WiFi for sleeper passengers, while coach can purchase it for a small fee.

New equipment could also be more like the viewliners, with the upper bunk window and a little more room. And just changes such as this to make the experience better.

Still dreaming though

Yes, I see your points except for the music control. I'm not sure what you're talking about as I have not encountered any music availability on the trains that I have taken. Which trains have these?

 

[AFS1970]

On my trip I had a total of 7 days to spend on vacation, while I did do a 24 hour trip from Seattle to Emeryville by Amtrak, taking the train down to LA would have cost a day from somewhere else in the trip, possibly Disneyland, which was the ultimate destination. So it wasn't so much thinking of the train as only transportation, it was how to fit as much as possible into a given time frame.

There is a professional conference I have thought of going to in Indianapolis and have thought about taking the train. The fact that it would add days onto the trip really isn't a factor to me at the initial planning stages. But depending on other schedule factors the train might be the easiest place to trim from. Sad but true, if the main purpose of the trip is not the train ride.

The idea of Amtrak as a land cruise is an interesting one, but I don't think it is an exact analogy. Once on a cruise ship, there is much to do, some of which can't happen on a train. No gym, certainly no pool, and food choices that no cruise line would ever serve. Although I have always wondered about the kind of New Years Eve party seen in Trading Places, but that seems to require different cars for all the open space.

 

[Qapla]

we could possibly have free decent-speed Wi-Fi for sleeper passengers, while coach can purchase it for a small fee.

I do not feel punishing coach passengers is the way to gain ridership. It doesn't really cost more to provide Wi-Fi to sleepers and coach as it would to provide it for sleepers only. Making coach passengers pay for Wi-Fi will not get them to start riding in a sleeper - it will just send them to some other type of transportation while leaving a bad taste in their mouths

 

[Cal]

Yes, I see your points except for the music control. I'm not sure what you're talking about as I have not encountered any music availability on the trains that I have taken. Which trains have these?

In the superliners, there is a thing called "Music Control". I guess they put it in thinking it would be nice, and over the years it slowly broke and became unused. The main channel just has the announcements play in your room. There is also a volume control on it.

At 2:40 you will be able to see it.

And also, the vent on the top apparently will blow right on you when you're in the top bunk. Could probably make that better

 

[Cal]

I do not feel punishing coach passengers is the way to gain ridership. It doesn't really cost more to provide Wi-Fi to sleepers and coach as it would to provide it for sleepers only. Making coach passengers pay for Wi-Fi will not get them to start riding in a sleeper - it will just send them to some other type of transportation while leaving a bad taste in their mouths

Well, I was talking about the western long distance serves, which at this time, don't have WiFi at all.

 

[Qapla]

Yes, but it you add Wi-Fi ... let all the riders use it - don't make some pay extra for it while the privileged get it for free (that is how it would be perceived). Free Wi-Fi is so common these days at so many places ... making some pay for it while others get it "included" would not set well with people used to having free Wi-Fi at McDonalds.

 

[Cal]

The idea of Amtrak as a land cruise is an interesting one, but I don't think it is an exact analogy. Once on a cruise ship, there is much to do, some of which can't happen on a train. No gym, certainly no pool, and food choices that no cruise line would ever serve. Although I have always wondered about the kind of New Years Eve party seen in Trading Places, but that seems to require different cars for all the open space.

I believe Amtrak used to advertise their trains as a land cruise at some point. And with the Pacific Parlour car, and the wine and cheese tastings plus the theatre, it was more of a land cruise.

I think if they could make the overall experience better; more reliability, adding traditional dining back, having WiFi, and *possibly* wine and cheese tasting, it could be a decent land cruise. As you would be able to enjoy quality meals in a nice cabin that is *somewhat* comparable to those of ships (in terms of quality, not size), and enjoying beautiful America while meeting new people.

We wouldn't need all the extra activities since it's only two days really, and instead of staring at the ocean, you get to see America. And of course with the adition of WiFi you will be able to enjoy your own entertainment.

Edit: Also, Amtrak does (or did) used to have guides come on and tell people about the places they were travelling through in the sightseer lounge. It was a nice touch, and having that on the routes would make it more interesting as you are learning what you are going through.

 

[Cal]

Yes, but it you add Wi-Fi ... let all the riders use it - don't make some pay extra for it while the privileged get it for free (that is how it would be perceived). Free Wi-Fi is so common these days at so many places ... making some pay for it while others get it "included" would not set well with people used to having free Wi-Fi at McDonalds.

I think it would be a tad more realistic to have Amtrak force coach to pay. I do agree though, having free WiFi for all would be a huge bonus.

 

[crescent-zephyr]

Maybe 30 people on a good day.

On the Crescent? There’s way more than 30 people in the Atlanta waiting room to board the train. I’d guess it’s close to 100 usually.

 

[Qapla]

Currently, coach passengers get free Wi-Fi on the Eastern trains. If you take that away and make them start paying extra for it you will just drive more passengers away - you know, like flex-dining. It is too late to start charging now for a service that has been being provided free for several years now.

 

[WWW]

The oxymoron of it all -

You don't need HSR in areas where touristy scenic viewing is the name of the game -
think the Rocky Mountaineer on steroids !
AND then what is the need for a LD snail pace train trip across the plains states or
anywhere the scenery is dull blase' suitable for only night time passage -
this demands hurry-up-getter-done and over with !
Reality sets in and one train set does not fit either of these equations - but two is
just not simply practical - timing scheduling and meshing of consists equipment.

The Trans-Siberian Express needs HSR - Le Orient Express needs a leisure pace to
slow down and smell the roses tulips whatever - radical examples of course !

I don't picture getting on a train to go from "A" to "B" in record time - that is what
the airplane is for/about. Yet the NEC is set up as a business venture - speed not
scenic viewing because the airplane is not suitable for these short distances.
Fast forward to rail trips across the great western plains states - 10 or more hours
of boring same ole same ole scenery best suited for HSR and during the night.
When it comes to transiting the canyons ridges mountains continental divide the
only HSR works is tunneling straight thru the scenic obstructions bypassing the scenery.

Simply put you don't take rail for speed in scenic country !

 

[Cal]

I think if they could make the overall experience better; more reliability, adding traditional dining back, having WiFi, and *possibly* wine and cheese tasting, it could be a decent land cruise. As you would be able to enjoy quality meals in a nice cabin that is *somewhat* comparable to those of ships (in terms of quality, not size), and enjoying beautiful America while meeting new people.

The new rooms would probably be about the same, or better quality as the Viewliner II roomettes. As they are MUCh more modern than the superliner ones (including three outlets).

I will say though, I don't think the in-room sink is that necessary...