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

[Swadian Hardcore]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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

 

[SarahZ]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[gmushial]

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]

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.

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.

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?

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

 

[amamba]

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]

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?

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

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]

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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

 

[Nathanael]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

 

[Anderson]

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