What Type Of People Ride Amtrak

[Railroad Bill]

One of the best parts of going Amtrak is the interesting people you meet on the train. Our last trip was a Russian computer programmer, a forest ranger, two people who live in Anchorage, Alaska, Amish families, two young men heading to "railroad engineer training school", 25 4th graders taking a quick field trip through Glacier National Park, an Austrailian couple traveling across our country, two Seattle residents heading to Boston to see a baseball game at Fenway Park, an oil man who is a Democrat, an environmentalist who wants to talk "Green" and so many more. As one comedian once expressed "VAT A GREAT COUNTRY DIS IS"

We love riding trains because it is restful, stressless, exciting, sometimes challenging, scenic, and cheaper than driving. Will not fly.

Try it one time and you might get hooked! We did

Railroad and Mrs. Bill

 

[Dan O]

What type of people do you find on Amtrak trains? I'm a grad student, live a block from the Amtrak station, and am curious what really draws people to ride. The recent fuel cost spike has made me think twice about driving or flying, but when I look at Amtrak it just really miff's me that they sell any tickets other than short commuter based travel. I see on-time percentages below 50%, it costs more, and takes 10 times longer. Am I missing something?
I wanted to go from Lafayette IN to Harrisburg PA, and the trip would take about 24 hours, have a 70% chance of being delayed, and costs about $200 more than a plane ride.

I am married w/ 4 kids and make a decent wage. I just completed an Los Angeles to Chicago and back to LA trip this past week. If I wanted to get to Chicago quickly I would have flown. But I wanted to share an adventure w/ my two oldest kids. Plus I read a book and did about 7-8 hours of work on crafts. So very productive I thought. I got to see some of America I had seen and some I hadn't in a long while. Plus Chicago was great. CAn't wait to go back w/ all of my family. If you just want to get from point A to point B the quickest, train travel may not always be the best. If you want an adventure while you travel, maybe it is.

DanO

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Train travel is greener than planes or cars, especially if you have public transit systems on either end you can connect to. In my case, if I claim to be concerned about global climate change, I have to be willing to make some 'adjustments' when I travel to support public transportation.

The average Amtrak traveler's trip is more fuel efficient than the average automobile or airplane traveler's trip in this country.

I'm not sure that implies that taking a Lafayette to Harrisburg trip by train instead of automobile or plane this month or next month using the infrastructure America has in 2008 is actually good for the environment. The number of train miles vs automobile miles may mean that the train trip actually would consume more fuel than the automobile trip. Additionally, if one Lafayette to Harrisburg traveler ties up a seat on several trains that could have saved two people airplane trips if those people had been able to make short train trips instead, we may not be coming out ahead. Jet engines burn a lot of fuel per hour at low altitutde (such as during takeoff) relative to higher altitudes. A lot of the fuel cost of a plane trip is per takeoff+landing, and then there's another component of the cost that's proportional to the distance traveled. Saving the Amtrak seats for the short distance travelers when there aren't enough of them to go around may be good for the environment (although maybe Amtrak will decide to refurbish some of those mothballed Amfleet Is and maybe even adjust the seat pitch in the process to lengthen some of the trains if there's enough demand, so it's not quite that simple to judge).

(The number of airplane trips and train passenger miles basically won't change much because of one person's booking if Amtrak and the airlines can keep their load factors high, but someone else who was determined to travel who now can't get a plane ticket will perhaps just drive instead of canceling their trip entirely.)

But there's another really subtle issue that I haven't studied far enough yet: electrified rail routes can very easily be powered without importing energy into this country; they could probably be powered almost entirely from any of coal, nuclear power, or wind without importing energy. Planes, automobiles, and diesel locomotives all require an energy source that needs to be largely imported to meet current demand. I believe there's currently a trade deficit. The raw cost of these things in dollars may not be the only thing to look at if some of these are going to destroy the value of the dollar and others aren't.

For long train trips, you also have to be careful about claiming that the train is greener, because taking a sleeping car becomes tempting, and much as I love sleeping cars, I'm a little skeptical that they're greener than flying first class, just because a sleeping compartment reduces the number of passengers in the car so much relative to a coach.

Then again, if you could take a sleeper on a route that was electrified the whole way (currently impossible in the US, unless you want to count the New York to DC segments as being meaningful sleeper trips by themselves) and powered using a very clean energy source (we don't yet have enough wind power for that to really be the case), it might turn out that even if the sleeper consumes more BTUs than the airplane, that the cleaner fuel would turn out to be a win by enough to make up for the extra BTUs.

If you liked how the trains worked in France...we won't get TGV service here unless more and more people use trains and demand that kind of service.

I don't think increasing the amount of time I spend riding MBTA buses (currently very little, since they get stuck in traffic and/or don't run frequently, and the subway system works better for most places I want to go) would prompt the state of Massachusetts to build the North South Rail Link, which sort of feels equivalent to what you're suggesting.

We also need to upgrade all the existing curvy track routes as far as we can even if we do start building lots of TGV quality track, because the high speed track, as France has carried it out, tends to run through unpopulated areas (and with US attitudes towards eminent domain, I can't see us doing things differently here, though maybe we can refrain from building stations in the middle of nowhere like the French have), and we need local train service through populated areas, too.

 

[WhoozOn1st]

But I haven't heard of scheduled passenger piston flights lately (or even scheduled passenger turboprop flights, for that matter).

Actually I see scheduled turboprops almost every time I'm waiting for a train at OXN. United Express puddlejumpers approaching from LAX (the airport) I believe. OXN is almost directly under the approach to Oxnard Airport (OXR), which is mostly general aviation, so on clear days there's no lack of aerial entertainment while waiting for a train. Even been on several turboprops into/out of Oxnard. A fun little flight to connect with the pure jets at LAX. In the good old days you could tack that feeder onto a United reservation for next to nothing; don't think it's like that anymore.

 

[gswager]

If the rail fare is a little high for you, try change the travel dates, either a day early or later or whenever.

 

[jackal]

But I haven't heard of scheduled passenger piston flights lately (or even scheduled passenger turboprop flights, for that matter).

Actually I see scheduled turboprops almost every time I'm waiting for a train at OXN. United Express puddlejumpers approaching from LAX (the airport) I believe. OXN is almost directly under the approach to Oxnard Airport (OXR), which is mostly general aviation, so on clear days there's no lack of aerial entertainment while waiting for a train. Even been on several turboprops into/out of Oxnard. A fun little flight to connect with the pure jets at LAX. In the good old days you could tack that feeder onto a United reservation for next to nothing; don't think it's like that anymore.

Horizon (a western regional airline owned by the same company that owns Alaska Airlines) operates Bombiardier CRJs and turboprops, and they're in the process of getting rid of their RJs as turboprops are much more fuel-efficient (slower but better on gas).

Era and PenAir up here operate a mostly turboprop fleet with a few piston-engine aircraft thrown in there. They do exist...

 

[amtrakwolverine]

you think amtrak is high let me asj you this. if you live in Michigan and had to get to Chicago but all ther flights for that day were 300 400 dollars. do you fly or take amtrak for around $70 round trip coach or 100 for business class round trip for a same day return.

 

[Loui1]

you think amtrak is high let me asj you this. if you live in Michigan and had to get to Chicago but all ther flights for that day were 300 400 dollars. do you fly or take amtrak for around $70 round trip coach or 100 for business class round trip for a same day return.

It depends how much time is of value to you.

Unfortunately, I dont think a cult following will bring back the system.....a minority of people paying for tickets now will only put money in some CEO's pocket. It needs to be driven by the market or government.

Los Angeles to Chicago.... man, I cant imagine taking spending 48 hours in a sleeper.

 

[Steven B]

It depends how much time is of value to you.

I view time spent on a train as productive time -- time to relax (which is important), time to catch up on reading, and time to get work done.

Unfortunately, I dont think a cult following will bring back the system.....a minority of people paying for tickets now will only put money in some CEO's pocket. It needs to be driven by the market or government.

The vast majority of Amtrak riders are not part of a "cult following." For many people, Amtrak is the most convenient, practical, or affordable way of traveling. That is especially true for people who can't fly or don't live near an airport. And in the Northeast Corridor, Amtrak is usually faster than flying if you include travel time to/from airports.

Los Angeles to Chicago.... man, I cant imagine taking spending 48 hours in a sleeper.

That's nothin'. Last year I went from Wilmington, Delaware to Seattle, Washington and back (three full days and nights each way) for a business meeting. Then, two days after I got back from that trip, I took an overnight train trip down to Florida for a week-long vacation. So I ended up spending 8 full days onboard Amtrak trains that month, and I enjoyed every minute of it.

 

[frj1983]

you think amtrak is high let me asj you this. if you live in Michigan and had to get to Chicago but all ther flights for that day were 300 400 dollars. do you fly or take amtrak for around $70 round trip coach or 100 for business class round trip for a same day return.

It depends how much time is of value to you.

Unfortunately, I dont think a cult following will bring back the system.....a minority of people paying for tickets now will only put money in some CEO's pocket. It needs to be driven by the market or government.

Los Angeles to Chicago.... man, I cant imagine taking spending 48 hours in a sleeper.

Respectfully Lou1,

Methinks you miss the points being made here. I live out in Aurora and work everyday in Chicago. I take Metra into Chicago...using your logic, one would ask "why in the world would I take Metra (and be stuck inside a passenger car for an hour) when I could jump in my car and quickly drive to Chicago?" Ah the hidden costs Lou the hidden costs: gas prices that go up (and have been for some time) and then to pay the exorbitant prices to park (which have also gone up) and the wear and tear on the vehicle. On Metra I can read, nap, and talk to others...not something I can do in my car, although I've seen some drivers trying such things.

If time is valued as ONLY getting there FAST, FAST, FAST then you've missed the whole point of traveling. Since you've just gotten out of school, a lesson from a teacher I once had who said about travel: "getting there and how you arrive is more important than the destination itself!" If speed is the most important point to you, then take the plane...but admit it, you wouldn't have come to this forum and wasted your time here if you weren't somewhat intrigued by the possibility of Amtrak travel? Right?

We're just trying to get you to think about things in a different way...speed IS NOT everything!!

Besides, I'm becoming more and more convinced that cheap airline tickets will soon be vanishing, yes, FAST!

 

[Loui1]

you think amtrak is high let me asj you this. if you live in Michigan and had to get to Chicago but all ther flights for that day were 300 400 dollars. do you fly or take amtrak for around $70 round trip coach or 100 for business class round trip for a same day return.

It depends how much time is of value to you.

Unfortunately, I dont think a cult following will bring back the system.....a minority of people paying for tickets now will only put money in some CEO's pocket. It needs to be driven by the market or government.

Los Angeles to Chicago.... man, I cant imagine taking spending 48 hours in a sleeper.

Respectfully Lou1,

Methinks you miss the points being made here. I live out in Aurora and work everyday in Chicago. I take Metra into Chicago...using your logic, one would ask "why in the world would I take Metra (and be stuck inside a passenger car for an hour) when I could jump in my car and quickly drive to Chicago?" Ah the hidden costs Lou the hidden costs: gas prices that go up (and have been for some time) and then to pay the exorbitant prices to park (which have also gone up) and the wear and tear on the vehicle. On Metra I can read, nap, and talk to others...not something I can do in my car, although I've seen some drivers trying such things.

If time is valued as ONLY getting there FAST, FAST, FAST then you've missed the whole point of traveling. Since you've just gotten out of school, a lesson from a teacher I once had who said about travel: "getting there and how you arrive is more important than the destination itself!" If speed is the most important point to you, then take the plane...but admit it, you wouldn't have come to this forum and wasted your time here if you weren't somewhat intrigued by the possibility of Amtrak travel? Right?

We're just trying to get you to think about things in a different way...speed IS NOT everything!!

Besides, I'm becoming more and more convinced that cheap airline tickets will soon be vanishing, yes, FAST!

Sure, believe me I love the idea of trains and hope they eventually flourish again. I appreciate the replies, as I came here hoping I'd find some reasoning to walk out my door, walk a block, and hop on the train...there is convenience value to that..... but it's just silly that it takes 21 hours longer to get to my destination than plane travel and cost as much if not more.

COMPLETELY different from a short commute because you gain the added benefit of avoiding the major traffic problems during rush hour (Im speaking as a past Metra rider from Schaumburg to Union Station)

 

[WhoozOn1st]

Sure, believe me I love the idea of trains and hope they eventually flourish again.

Dude, take a serious look around. Railroads, and rail transit, are clearly entering a new Golden Age, and the evidence is everywhere if you care to really look. You might start with gasoline prices, the airlines, and urban congestion, and finish with trucking rates. Rail is flourishing right under your nose.

 

[Walt]

Dude, take a serious look around. Railroads, and rail transit, are clearly entering a new Golden Age, and the evidence is everywhere if you care to really look. You might start with gasoline prices, the airlines, and urban congestion, and finish with trucking rates. Rail is flourishing right under your nose.

While there might be a brief rebirth, I think we are well past the point of no return. Rail transit, if it grows, will quickly crumble because its infrastructure is already crumbling.

I recently took the Vermonter to, well, Vermont. The fact that the train had to lumber along at a walking pace, about 5 MPH, demonstrates oh too clearly to me, just how bad the rail infrastructure has deteriorated. And, sorry, but I don't think that is the single exception, but rather, part of the leading pack of what rail transit will quickly become. Amtrak (even with CSX) has been repairing and updating track at a pace well short of the speed at which it is all falling apart. That gap has grown too large for anyone to ever close it.

I did look around, and what I see, brings tears to my eyes.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

While there might be a brief rebirth, I think we are well past the point of no return. Rail transit, if it grows, will quickly crumble because its infrastructure is already crumbling.
I recently took the Vermonter to, well, Vermont. The fact that the train had to lumber along at a walking pace, about 5 MPH, demonstrates oh too clearly to me, just how bad the rail infrastructure has deteriorated. And, sorry, but I don't think that is the single exception, but rather, part of the leading pack of what rail transit will quickly become. Amtrak (even with CSX) has been repairing and updating track at a pace well short of the speed at which it is all falling apart. That gap has grown too large for anyone to ever close it.

The highways are crumbling, too. In the Eisenhower era, the US built an awful lot of bridges that were expected to last 40-50 years. We're probably falling behind on maintaining / replacing them.

And if you look at which Amtrak routes are unsignaled, the northern part of the Vermonter run is one of the few, so I think it is perfectly reasonable to regard that route as an exceptionally unloved route.

NECR owns those Vermonter tracks, not CSX.

 

[p&sr]

Los Angeles to Chicago.... man, I cant imagine taking spending 48 hours in a sleeper.

I did that run in Coach last week. Very pleasant, very restful.

Besides, you aren't supposed to just STAY in the Sleeper. Get up and walk around, visit the Lounge Car and meet people, enjoy your meals in the Diner.

I appreciate the replies, as I came here hoping I'd find some reasoning to walk out my door, walk a block, and hop on the train...there is convenience value to that..... but it's just silly that it takes 21 hours longer to get to my destination than plane travel and cost as much if not more.

What you ought to do is find a trip you can take from your home station that is longer than a regular business commute, but that lets you make a round-trip in one day, or with a single overnight at your destination. Take the Ride, and Then Decide!

 

[Gingee]

A train ride is totally different from a Metra ride. I have taken the Metra from Crystal Lake to downtown Chicago. I think it is fun and a lot faster (so it seems) than Amtrak.

We are planning on driving to the Metra,(Crystal Lake) Amtrak, taking taxis in NYC, taking a cruise and who knows what next month. So we are taking all kinds of transportation. We don't like in the Chicago area - more like three hours from it.

The train rides are bumpier than the Metra (that's for sure) but it is peaceful.

We have gone coach, roommette and family bedroom. Granted family bedroom was better, they all have their advantages depending on how long you are on the train.

The first time we took a train (to NYC) we took the Cardinal. I wondered if there were many people on them. Man was I surprised. Lots of people including families. Sometimes you can get free fares also with children. Do you ever get that on a plane?

Just a few thoughts.

 

[blueman271]

I take the train not only because i find it peaceful and relaxing but also because i am scared of flying (which makes no sense whatsoever because i spend the majority of my time in a steel tube hundreds of feet beneath the surface of the ocean). While flying may be statistically safer, it always seems that even in the worst train accidents the majority of the people survive, whereas in the worst airline accidents the majority of the people do not.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

It depends how much time is of value to you.

Loui1, my time is the second most valuable thing to me in the whole wide world, my fiancé being the first. I spent the first 20 or so years of my life being resentful, upset, lonely, and darn near got myself killed more times than I care to think of. I am awfully, painfully, horribly aware of the fact that at least more than a quarter of my life has passed by now. I am very careful about how I spend my time. Each moment of it is dearly precious.

Because of this, I refuse to fly. Not because I'm scared of planes. I'm not. I'd fly if there was a compelling need other than someone wanting me somewhere at their convenience more than mine. No, I refuse to fly because I can't think of a less pleasant experience. Considering economics, I can't think of less satisfaction for a dollar spent.

Think about it. You spend a considerable amount of money to fly. For this money, you stressfully race to the airport, get herded through an undignified "security" check that accomplishes very little, and race through a dingy, cold building to sit in a waiting area. Then you get to get in a long, rude line to board this small, smelly, noisy tin can.

Within this tin can, you can sit into a seat barely big enough for your tuchus, crushed against several other people. You are forced to listen to a pointless safety announcement- I doubt it has saved a single life. Then you can wait for your plane to take off, and when it does you get to enjoy the feeling of your ears screaming in pain. Then you may or may not get an astonishingly small bag of snack and a teeny can of soda from a plastic woman with a plastic smile who never even notices you. Then you can get more pain as the plane lands. I don't know about you, but it would take me a day to recover from this.

Me? I amble my way to my local commuter railroad road stop, get to the station a few hours early but only because I enjoy train stations, and sit in a first class lounge with free food and a usually friendly attendant- personally friendly. Then I board a train, am greeted by an often friendly and warm attendant, and some remember my face, even after a few years of not seeing them.

I settle into a comfortable room with my stuff. I go and eat real, delicious, and included meals, with other people with which I have a genuine, friendly conversation. I go to a lounge and enjoy the world going by. I drink some nice booze and talk to some nice people. I go to sleep in a comfortable bed. I wake up well rested, and eat a good breakfast. I arrive where I am going happy, refreshed, and comfortable. With NO stress. If I'm connecting and something goes wrong, I know Amtrak will take care of it. As they always have.

Because Amtrak is an anachronism that, more often then not, does the right thing the best that they can.

I have now enjoyed 20 hours of my life going from New York to Chicago rather than hating 6 of them.

Los Angeles to Chicago.... man, I cant imagine taking spending 48 hours in a sleeper.

Man, try it. Just once, give it a shot. You'll go no other way.

 

[gswager]

If time is important, not very, I fly out and ride train home, as long as you're located in the same area where train station and airport is, such as ABQ. If you have good public transportation, that's good.

Do I get really tired, such as "post-vacation" syndrome, after returning trip on train? NO! On airplanes, it takes me about 2 days to recover due to stress.

 

[Rail Freak]

you think amtrak is high let me asj you this. if you live in Michigan and had to get to Chicago but all ther flights for that day were 300 400 dollars. do you fly or take amtrak for around $70 round trip coach or 100 for business class round trip for a same day return.

It depends how much time is of value to you.

Unfortunately, I dont think a cult following will bring back the system.....a minority of people paying for tickets now will only put money in some CEO's pocket. It needs to be driven by the market or government.

Los Angeles to Chicago.... man, I cant imagine taking spending 48 hours in a sleeper.

:angry: :unsure: :huh: :lol:

OH NO UNCLE BILL, 11 DAYS, LOL LOL LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[transit54]

I take trains for a few different reasons. Most of my trips are along what's considered corridor service, but they are also 6-10 hour trips, so they take up a substantial part of my day.

1) I can be productive on a train. I can get online via my laptop and blackberry and I have a 120v outlet to plug into. In most airports finding power outlets can be an issue (this is becoming less of a problem now, but it depends where you are). I can also sleep easily, read, relax, or be on the phone (but I try and keep my conversations short and quiet as I can't stand people who loudly yap on their phones the entire trip). I can do none of these things, except read, on a plane. I absolutely can't do any of these things when I'm driving - and I hate driving more than an hour or so anywhere - I just find it mind numbing.

2) I've come to hate commercial aviation. I currently work part time in the aviation industry, at least for a few more weeks (I'm making a transition to a career in public transit at the moment). The amount of delays and unreliability of air travel (especially into the New York area, where I'm usually headed) is absolutely unreal. I've just come to hate last minute delays, cramped seats, standing in lines and waiting for bags. That doesn't mean I hate flying - I'm actually working on getting my private pilot's license at the moment - I've just gotten fed up the commercial air travel and try and avoid it when I can.

3) Trains, if not always on time, are generally much more consistent than planes. Sort of goes with the above. Amtrak doesn't have the best OTP rating, but they are pretty consistent. I can get a general idea of the time that I'll arrive on a train, usually within about an hour. If a plane I'm on takes a delay, it could be 20 minutes or five hours - I really have no idea. Before I start off my travel, I really can't get a good idea of when I'm going to arrive, except when I hope that everything is running on time (i.e. the weather is good).

4) Train travel is more environmentally friendly. To me, that's an important point, though I realize it isn't for everyone. I also view it as a long-term, sustainable means of transportation that isn't as dependent on a single source of fuel or incredibly imperiled when the price of fuel rises, unlike airplanes.

5) Trains give you an opportunity to get up, walk around, socialize with those around you and enjoy the scenery. Those are things that planes really don't offer.

6) On overnight trains, the ability to have a sleeper allows me to have a full night's rest while else getting somewhere. This is less of a factor when the trip is longer than say, 12-15 hours, but for certain city pairs I can board, potentially enjoy a meal, go to sleep, wake up, shower, enjoy another meal and then arrive in my final destination.

7) Walk up train fare is much, much less than walk up airfare. By hundreds of dollars. One way walk up rail fare, ESX->NYP is about $55 - on my carrier of choice, its $249 for BTV->JFK. When I can plan way in advance, airfare becomes competitive, but when I need to get somewhere three days from now, its a lot cheaper to take the train.

8) In most cases, Amtrak gets me exactly where I'm trying to go. When I go to southern CT (where I grew up) to see family and friends, I could fly to New York, but then it takes me about 2.5 hours to get out of the city and where I need to be. Amtrak drops me off just ten miles from where I'm headed.

 

[D.P. Roberts]

If I just want to get from Point A to Point B as quickly as possible, I'll fly. I hate flying. Otherwise, I'll take a train. For all leisure travel, I think a train or car is necessary. I've taken a few trips overseas - via planes, of course - and it really bothered me. I'm put in an aluminum tube, shaken for a dozen hours, and thrown off the tube, to be told I'm looking at Big Ben, Mauna Loa, or some other site far from my home. For all I know, they dropped me off in Iceland, Timbuktu, or right back where I started from. Frankly, when I fly it takes me several days (if ever) to even feel like I'm really THERE. For me, it defeats the point of getting there quickly.

When traveling by train or car, you actually get the feeling that you're traveling somewhere. It may take longer, but it makes the whole experience more worthwhile - not just the train portion, but the whole trip.

 

[jackal]

If I just want to get from Point A to Point B as quickly as possible, I'll fly. I hate flying. Otherwise, I'll take a train. For all leisure travel, I think a train or car is necessary. I've taken a few trips overseas - via planes, of course - and it really bothered me. I'm put in an aluminum tube, shaken for a dozen hours, and thrown off the tube, to be told I'm looking at Big Ben, Mauna Loa, or some other site far from my home. For all I know, they dropped me off in Iceland, Timbuktu, or right back where I started from. Frankly, when I fly it takes me several days (if ever) to even feel like I'm really THERE. For me, it defeats the point of getting there quickly.
When traveling by train or car, you actually get the feeling that you're traveling somewhere. It may take longer, but it makes the whole experience more worthwhile - not just the train portion, but the whole trip.

I don't have the same negative feeling toward flying that you and a few other people around here talk about (I actually like it...especially now that I have status, sit in first class, and get waited on hand and foot with unlimited free booze...oops, did I say that out loud? :lol: ), but I definitely agree with your statement that it takes several days to really feel like I'm "there." There is something cool about knowing that 12 hours (and three connections) earlier I was 6,000 miles away from where I was, but once that wears off, it's almost a surreal feeling that makes it hard to really appreciate where you are--like it's fake or that you're in some holodeck or Disney animatronic scene. Traveling on the ground really makes you understand that you are FAR from home!

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

I don't have the same negative feeling toward flying that you and a few other people around here talk about (I actually like it...especially now that I have status, sit in first class, and get waited on hand and foot with unlimited free booze...oops, did I say that out loud? :lol: ), but I definitely agree with your statement that it takes several days to really feel like I'm "there." There is something cool about knowing that 12 hours (and three connections) earlier I was 6,000 miles away from where I was, but once that wears off, it's almost a surreal feeling that makes it hard to really appreciate where you are--like it's fake or that you're in some holodeck or Disney animatronic scene. Traveling on the ground really makes you understand that you are FAR from home!

My experiences are almost opposite. If I take an airplane or drive, I know that I've traveled a great distance, and that all completely makes sense. If I fall asleep somewhere in upstate New York and wake up in northern Indiana, there's something kind of surreal about that. Then again, I've done two round trips by combinations of automobile and Greyhound between Boston and Indiana, and in my childhood experienced an automobile trip from Connecticut to California, and I've made numerous plane trips, and only one round trip in a sleeping car, so familiarity with the mode of travel might be a factor.

But Amtrak is also the only mode of transportation where I have gotten a good night's sleep while traveling.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

I take the train not only because i find it peaceful and relaxing but also because i am scared of flying (which makes no sense whatsoever because i spend the majority of my time in a steel tube hundreds of feet beneath the surface of the ocean). While flying may be statistically safer, it always seems that even in the worst train accidents the majority of the people survive, whereas in the worst airline accidents the majority of the people do not.

I think submarine hulls are probably also a little bit more rugged than airframes, and/or that the lower speeds of submarines mean that collisions do not involve forces nearly as large.