Who is drawn to slow train travel?

[Devil's Advocate]

However, I find that travel above 120 MPH as disorientating when trying to view the scenery outside. I noted that when traveling on HSR trains in Europe.

I wondered about this but in all my travels it has never been an issue. As the train speeds up my eyes simply refocus on the features that remain visible slightly further away. You cannot focus on features near the track but that is due to the limited 90-degree viewing angle which is true of most conventional trains as well. The only time I felt disorientated was riding a Japanese train where we entered a tunnel with advertising that appeared to follow the train at track speed. I'm not sure how it worked or if it still exists but despite being legible it was jarring to see it moving so quickly and so close to the train.

Some other airlines will refund for a 2nd seat only if the flight turns out not to be full, which is not very useful.

That seems both useful and fair to me. As a tall person there are no refunds for extra legroom seats even if I'm the only person on the plane.

 

[moselman66]

It's worth mentioning that more than half the traffic on nearly every long-distance route comes from people traveling less than 500 miles:

88.1% Palmetto
77.3% Cardinal
71.0% Texas Eagle
69.1% Silver Star
66.3% City of New Orleans
65.1% Coastal Starlight
65.1% Crescent
62.6% Lakeshore Limited
62.3% Capitol Limited
59.9% full long-distance system average
55.3% Empire Builder
53.5% Silver Meteor
53.0% California Zephyr
50.2% Sunset Limited*
43.9% Southwest Chief**
*Includes Los Angeles-Tucson, at 502 miles, Sunset Limited's busiest city pair
**Southwest Chief has 52% of passengers traveling under 600 miles

Here's where these stats are coming from
https://www.railpassengers.org/resources/ridership-statistics/
Of course longer segments generate more revenue per passenger. One coach CZ passenger Chicago-Omaha is as low as $63, one coach CZ passenger Chicago-SF Bay is as low as $141. And rooms (which are much more revenue) skew long haul, of course. But the majority of passengers and a very significant portion of revenue comes from people do much shorter trips.

Trips in the under-500 mile range are far more competing with cars than planes. Many popular segments are 4-8 hours drive and the train is often pretty competitive timewise, especially when one considers people likely made a stop on such car trips. in some markets planes are definitely a competitor, but in city pairs like this cars tend to dominate over flying regardless of the presence of Amtrak. Many city pairs such as Memphis-New Orleans require a connection which kills the time advantage. And even for markets which do have nonstop flights they are often the hub-feeding short haul flights with high air fares such as Minneapolis-Grand Forks, Atlanta-Greensboro, etc.

For people traveling these sorts of city pairs on long-distance routes the choice of train is not the huge time penalty, the sort of "who choses to take a two-day train when they can fly in hour hours?" sort of proposition. In these shorter trips the question tends to be why do people chose the train versus a car. And that tends to be categories like these, some of which have been mentioned before:
--People without ready access to a car for the trip (zero-car and single-car homes by choice or financial constraints, students)
--People who do not drive (young, old, low vision & health issues, the choice not to learn to drive)
--People who don't wish to deal with the traffic, bad weather road conditions, etc.
--People who want to avoid the unproductivity and fatigue of driving
--People traveling somewhere that a car is unnecessary or even a liability (visiting family/friends who will drive them around, people visiting a big city where a car is not needed and parking is costly)

Most long distance trains have fewer than 10% of total traffic being people who travel from end to end. Certainly it's more than 10% of revenue, again, because the longer distance passengers pay higher actual fares (lower cents per mile but raw fares are higher) and they are more likely to occupy expensive rooms. But the LD trains serve far more people traveling far shorter lengths.

 

[JeanA]

I don't know if this falls into "love of train travel" or "time to spare" or both, but we use train travel as part of the vacation itself...

I agree with this. I tend to take an LD trip when I'm sorely in need of a break. I kind of collapse into my roomette upon boarding and relish the disconnect from everyday bustle. It's mental healing time on the train. Watching the scenery, chilling with podcasts and movies, knitting. Quiet time.

 

[toddinde]

I am working on a project about slow train travel for a graduate-level Environmental Psychology class, and in part of the project, I am making the case that because long-distance Amtrak is slow and inconvenient, it does not appeal to average travelers and instead draws a disparate cross section of people, each with an interesting story to tell. Based solely on my own personal observation, I’d probably classify Amtrak passengers into the following categories.

• people who do not like to fly (or are afraid to, or cannot for religious or cultural reasons, such as Amish)
• people with a love of train travel
• retirees or others with a lot of time to spare
• people who live in remote towns served by train but not by air

Would you say this is accurate? Am I missing anyone? Or am I oversimplifying something that is really way more complex?

Anyone with more interest in what I am doing can check out a *working copy* of my project at slowspeedrail.com. Rather than write an academic paper that only my professor would read, I decided to make the work public facing. Any input you may have is much appreciated!

I think that you have a decent list, but if you get out on the rails, you’ll find that people’s reasons for taking the train are quite varied. But I think you are on to something which is almost nobody goes and flies for the experience. Nor do most people ride the bus for the experience. People will take the train for many reasons from basic transportation, to seeing the country, to simply relaxing. It points to the incredible value of rail passenger service. Consider as well the amazing market penetration of Amtrak in small towns.

 

[toddinde]

It's worth mentioning that more than half the traffic on nearly every long-distance route comes from people traveling less than 500 miles:

88.1% Palmetto
77.3% Cardinal
71.0% Texas Eagle
69.1% Silver Star
66.3% City of New Orleans
65.1% Coastal Starlight
65.1% Crescent
62.6% Lakeshore Limited
62.3% Capitol Limited
59.9% full long-distance system average
55.3% Empire Builder
53.5% Silver Meteor
53.0% California Zephyr
50.2% Sunset Limited*
43.9% Southwest Chief**
*Includes Los Angeles-Tucson, at 502 miles, Sunset Limited's busiest city pair
**Southwest Chief has 52% of passengers traveling under 600 miles

Here's where these stats are coming from
https://www.railpassengers.org/resources/ridership-statistics/
Of course longer segments generate more revenue per passenger. One coach CZ passenger Chicago-Omaha is as low as $63, one coach CZ passenger Chicago-SF Bay is as low as $141. And rooms (which are much more revenue) skew long haul, of course. But the majority of passengers and a very significant portion of revenue comes from people do much shorter trips.

Trips in the under-500 mile range are far more competing with cars than planes. Many popular segments are 4-8 hours drive and the train is often pretty competitive timewise, especially when one considers people likely made a stop on such car trips. in some markets planes are definitely a competitor, but in city pairs like this cars tend to dominate over flying regardless of the presence of Amtrak. Many city pairs such as Memphis-New Orleans require a connection which kills the time advantage. And even for markets which do have nonstop flights they are often the hub-feeding short haul flights with high air fares such as Minneapolis-Grand Forks, Atlanta-Greensboro, etc.

For people traveling these sorts of city pairs on long-distance routes the choice of train is not the huge time penalty, the sort of "who choses to take a two-day train when they can fly in hour hours?" sort of proposition. In these shorter trips the question tends to be why do people chose the train versus a car. And that tends to be categories like these, some of which have been mentioned before:
--People without ready access to a car for the trip (zero-car and single-car homes by choice or financial constraints, students)
--People who do not drive (young, old, low vision & health issues, the choice not to learn to drive)
--People who don't wish to deal with the traffic, bad weather road conditions, etc.
--People who want to avoid the unproductivity and fatigue of driving
--People traveling somewhere that a car is unnecessary or even a liability (visiting family/friends who will drive them around, people visiting a big city where a car is not needed and parking is costly)

Most long distance trains have fewer than 10% of total traffic being people who travel from end to end. Certainly it's more than 10% of revenue, again, because the longer distance passengers pay higher actual fares (lower cents per mile but raw fares are higher) and they are more likely to occupy expensive rooms. But the LD trains serve far more people traveling far shorter lengths.

Very true. It points to the fact that adding a second frequency on long distance routes is a cost effective way to serve many station pairs effective. I commend your attention to Andy Selden’s work on this. He’s come up with a lot of very interesting points.

 

[BlackDiamond]

almost nobody goes and flies for the experience.

Once my Dad bought a ticket to fly from Boston to Hyannis on Cape Air because they were still operating the DC-3s and he wanted to ride one. But I agree that is pretty unusual.

 

[Qapla]

From reading this thread, it does not appear that many who have responded are "drawn to train travel" because it is "slow". While it may not be as fast as a plane, in many cases it is just a fast (or faster) than driving or taking a bus.

There have been many expressions of why people take the train - but because it is "slow" does not seem to be a main reason for preferring the train over other means of travel ... as the title of the thread seems to indicate.

 

[joelkfla]

From reading this thread, it does not appear that many who have responded are "drawn to train travel" because it is "slow". While it may not be as fast as a plane, in many cases it is just a fast (or faster) than driving or taking a bus.

There have been many expressions of why people take the train - but because it is "slow" does not seem to be a main reason for preferring the train over other means of travel ... as the title of the thread seems to indicate.

Shall we say instead: "relaxing"?

 

[jis]

Shall we say instead: "relaxing"?

Or we could drop the adjective entirely, since very few rush hour train riders even on intercity trains sometimes in SRO condition would consider it particularly relaxing, and yet those are usually faster and cheaper than flying, two major reasons to use trains under those circumstances.

Or we could clarify that we are just talking about so called "experiential" (a term invented by Anderson's Amtrak) train rides and none other.

 

[joelkfla]

Or we could drop the adjective entirely, since very few rush hour train riders even on intercity trains sometimes in SRO condition would consider it particularly relaxing, and yet those are usually faster and cheaper than flying, two major reasons to use trains under those circumstances.

Or we could clarify that we are just talking about so called "experiential" (a term invented by Anderson's Amtrak) train rides and none other.

My impression was that the OP was taking mainly about LD rail, and maybe intercity.

My personal experience with intercity rail is limited to one RT on Brightline, which is certainly not characteristic of the genre, and was not at rush hour (if there is one between W. Palm & Miami.)

But there have been a number of posts in this thread and elsewhere saying riding the train was chosen because it is less stressful than flying.

 

[jis]

But there have been a number of posts in this thread and elsewhere saying riding the train was chosen because it is less stressful than flying.

Yes. I think the thread is about those train rides that are less crowded and stressful. So tautologically they are less stressful. We are not talking about all train rides by any means. So I think your observation is right on the mark.

 

[PNW Pax]

I am working on a project about slow train travel for a graduate-level Environmental Psychology class, and in part of the project, I am making the case that because long-distance Amtrak is slow and inconvenient, it does not appeal to average travelers and instead draws a disparate cross section of people, each with an interesting story to tell. Based solely on my own personal observation, I’d probably classify Amtrak passengers into the following categories.

• people who do not like to fly (or are afraid to, or cannot for religious or cultural reasons, such as Amish)
• people with a love of train travel
• retirees or others with a lot of time to spare
• people who live in remote towns served by train but not by air

Would you say this is accurate? Am I missing anyone? Or am I oversimplifying something that is really way more complex?

Anyone with more interest in what I am doing can check out a *working copy* of my project at slowspeedrail.com. Rather than write an academic paper that only my professor would read, I decided to make the work public facing. Any input you may have is much appreciated!

I love train travel and I'm a retiree. I also occasionally book a LD trip when I am working on a project that requires concentration and insulation from distractions. A roomette provides a quiet place to work, and there is often freedom form WiFi. If I need/want a break, I can go to the SSL. In the days before at-seat electrical outlets, I once walked the length of a Superliner coach looking for the outlet the cleaning crew used for their equipment, so I could plug in my laptop.

Good luck on your research. I hope you will post your finished paper.

 

[John from RI]

An obvious group of people who ride trains are those with mobility impairments who cannot negotiate the narrow aisles and the rest rooms where you cannot stand up on a plane.

Then there are people like me. At 82 I do not have a mobility impairment and I don't even use a cane. I can ride local transit buses and I regularly do. Planes are more difficult. Buses have bench seats which are not huge but are a lot easier than the narrow bucket seats on planes. Rides are fairly short so there are no restroom issues. Then there is changing planes. Schedules are so tight making connecting flights is difficult at best. If I used a wheel chair or even a walker provision would be made. However, I don't. There is a presumption that I have the speed and nimbleness of a 25 year old. I don't any more but neither airline companies nor airports will make any allowances whatsoever for that. Missing your plane because you just were not quick enough to run for the change is not much fun at all. Realistically, planes offer only very limited travel options for me.

Occasionally I travel between northern New Jersey and Gulfport MS. By plane it is 8 to 9 hours. However, changing planes, usually at Atlanta, is extremely difficult at best. It has resulted in missed planes. The train from Newark to New Orleans takes 20 hours with a bed to sleep in. I look forward to the resumption of rail service along the Gulf Coast.

 

[frequentflyer]

My impression was that the OP was taking mainly about LD rail, and maybe intercity.

My personal experience with intercity rail is limited to one RT on Brightline, which is certainly not characteristic of the genre, and was not at rush hour (if there is one between W. Palm & Miami.)

But there have been a number of posts in this thread and elsewhere saying riding the train was chosen because it is less stressful than flying.

All depends, I do not find flying stressful, I been through almost every major hub and know them like the back of my hand. I listen to music when flying so its relaxing to me. Avoid flying during peak times. TSA is a breeze and a better experience with Pre Check.

Amtrak is relaxing whether sitting in coach or SSL and watching the scenery go by, again my preference along with music. The stressful part of Amtrak is sitting in a siding in the middle of nowhere and no announcement why. Pax are very understanding if you tell them why, big props to train crew that do that. You are keeping customers for Amtrak. IIts the reason I could NEVER take the Sunset Ltd out of NOL. Its a given it drops an hour or hour and a half before it gets to Lake Charles. That would drive me crazy.

Probably why I enjoy Amtrak's NEC so much.

 

[wallylegs]

Tourists. Don't forget tourists.
I have been on 7 LDs, every trip I took to the US, I did at least 1 trip.
It is a captivating way to see what landscapes are on offer, and I would do it again in a heartbeat,
if I could right now.
My last trip was 3 years ago, and on that trip there was many tourists.
I met people from Germany, Sth Africa, Britain, more Aussies, and several others from abroad.
Things are different right now, and over the past 2 years the mix of people has changed,
but it will get back there.
I loved my journeys, with a capital L.

 

[Law638]

My Uncle was a train company employee & spoke often about the benefits of train travel. Now, as a young retiree, I found my love of train travel. I have never have been as relaxed as a I was on my first LD trip to Orlando on the Star! So much so that I booked a round trip cross country trip! I never was as relaxed on any of my round the world trips/vacations! Thanks to my inherited wanderlust!

 

[Nick Farr]

That was the case until air fare deregulation came and LCCs came about. At that point, often, with a little care one could get air fares that were and are dramatically lower than train fares.

Let's not forget the Essential Air Service.

 

[pennyk]

Unlike many AU members, I have never traveled on a train with either of my parents. My grandfather (my mother's father) was in a LIRR accident (around 1951) where the train on which he was riding was rear ended. According to my mother, my grandfather was the only one in his car that survived, although he was permanently disabled after the accident.

My first train trip was an 8th grade spring break trip from Miami to DC in 1965 (I think). My next train trip was in 1970 when my mother put me on a train (from Miami to Waldo) to go to college (rather than drive me to Gainesville). I took trains every now and then after that. However, when my ears became so sensitive that it was painful to fly, I chose to travel by train for business, family visits and just for fun. I last flew in 2004 when I attended a conference in Atlanta and I could not justify the train fare (when I was being reimbursed for airfare).

 

[jis]

Moderator's Note: This is a heads up... For now we will let this free flow of airfan discussion carry on in this obviously inappropriate thread. Very soon, we will create a separate thread for this either in the Non-Rail Transport Forum or in the Lounge. We will preserve and move all of the airfan posts to this new thread, and let the railfan discussion carry on here. We will notify on this thread and provide a pointer to the new thread when it happens.

This move has been completed. See the second Moderator's Notes below.

 

[vinceg723]

Circling back to the original post, you can view my project here -- slowspeedrail.com.

Thoughtful feedback welcome, including if you want to drop me a note directly. I would like to expand and deepen this project beyond the context of the course I am taking, possibly into a capstone project for a liberal studies degree.

 

[jis]

Moderator's Notes: All the posts that had to do purely with unique flying experiences have now been moved to a new thread at:

https://www.amtraktrains.com/threads/who-is-drawn-to-flying.80541/
Please continue the flying discussion there, and carry on with the train discussion here. Thanks.

 

[MARC Rider]

While it may not be as fast as a plane, in many cases it is just a fast (or faster) than driving or taking a bus.

Not necessarily. For example, the ride between Washington and Pittsburgh is 8 hours (assuming no meltdowns or freight interference) on the Capitol Limited; you can drive it in 5. The ride from Boston to Albany on the Boston section of the Lakeshore Limited is 5 hours; you can drive it in 3. In general, the routes that cross mountain ranges are slowed by curves and grades. The highways also have curves and grades over the mountains, but you can drive them at 60-70 mph, whereas the train seems to have to slow down to 30-45 mph. Another issue is that the route mileages on the trains are greater than those of the highways. For example, the CSX line from Washington to Pittsburgh is 50 miles longer than the highway route using Interstates 270, 70, and 76.

 

[Willbridge]

Not necessarily. For example, the ride between Washington and Pittsburgh is 8 hours (assuming no meltdowns or freight interference) on the Capitol Limited; you can drive it in 5. The ride from Boston to Albany on the Boston section of the Lakeshore Limited is 5 hours; you can drive it in 3. In general, the routes that cross mountain ranges are slowed by curves and grades. The highways also have curves and grades over the mountains, but you can drive them at 60-70 mph, whereas the train seems to have to slow down to 30-45 mph. Another issue is that the route mileages on the trains are greater than those of the highways. For example, the CSX line from Washington to Pittsburgh is 50 miles longer than the highway route using Interstates 270, 70, and 76.

Often those extra miles diverge into areas that are most scenic and lightly touched by highway businesses. The Portland<>Seattle line is now three miles shorter than it used to be, but the most famous scenery was replaced by the run through military bases and alongside I-5. I understand the reasons, but there will be people who are disappointed.

 

[neroden]

I think the point made by moselman66 is important: namely that over half of the people taking the so-called long-distance trains are comparing them with DRIVING, and aren't even seriously considering air travel. Either for price reasons, because the air route is ridiculously indirect, because they don't want to deal with the TSA, because of health reasons, etc. This is particularly true for trips under 600 miles where the time advantage of air -- if there even is any advantage, and there often isn't! -- doesn't seem worth the hassle.

I mean, technically, you can fly from Tucson to Phoenix, but who does that? You can fly from Cleveland to Toledo, via an annoyingly indirect route, but who does that?

You need to rename your project. It's frankly offensive to call it "slowspeedrail" when it's typically faster than its primary competitor, driving. And driving is the primary competition to Amtrak, and there's data to prove that.

 

[Willbridge]

I think the point made by moselman66 is important: namely that over half of the people taking the so-called long-distance trains are comparing them with DRIVING, and aren't even seriously considering air travel. ... .... it's typically faster than its primary competitor, driving. And driving is the primary competition to Amtrak, and there's data to prove that.

Driving is the primary competition to short-haul aviation, too.

In my career I've been on the fringes of three highway projects that clobbered air travel numbers when the last portions of Interstates were completed. I-5 in southern Oregon led to flight cutbacks. I-80N/I-84 in the Oregon Blue Mountains put Pendleton into the EAS poverty cycle and I-80 in the Glenwood Canyon sucked traffic away from intrastate flights. I'm sure there were more cases elsewhere.

In all of these examples, boosters for these costly highway segments often came from the same elements of politics and commerce who bemoaned the consequent loss or reduction of air service.

When I first rode CNR between Edmonton and Vancouver, BC there were three transcontinental trains to choose from and there were two CPR trains paralleling. There were segments of gravel road parallel, too, as well as some winding segments on the Trans-Canada Highway. People made travel choices based on that.