Who is drawn to slow train travel?

[user 6862]

I guess one question is whether, if we could wave a magic wand and make all Amtrak routes HSR, would it be more or less attractive to travel that way? I suspect for some--those enjoying the scenery, the ability to unplug for a couple of days--the answer would be, it would be worse. For those who can't or won't fly, or have limited vacation time, or are traveling from areas where air travel is unavailable or prohibitively expensive, the answer would be, faster would be better.

At age 75 I fit several categories, but I've always been a geography fan and trains, or ferries have offered the best look at not only the landscape but also at how people make a living along the way. (Most places when I've flown have been socked in. And the seatbelt light stays lit.)

Some years ago, I was at lunch meeting in a franchise restaurant out by the East Salem Bypass on I-5 and overheard a couple arguing about whether they were in Salem or Albany. That sounded silly, but when I looked around all of the signs were for national chain providers of fuel, food, etc. Next time try the train!

This is something too, travelling too fast doesn't allow time to just stare at something that catches your eye unless it is in the far distance and quite large.
As both posters mention, whether it is scenery or how life is lived along the way it is difficult to fully absorb or even absorb at all with high speed rail. (I'm using a definition of high speed as 150 mph and above BTW).

 

[Qapla]

I am working on a project about slow train travel

By the title and this introductory comment - I did not get the idea that this was about "standard" Amtrak service. The expression "slow train travel" had me thinking this was going to be about trains that move very slow, like the TECO Streetcar in Tampa - now that is "slow train service". When looking at Amtrak I find that the train is very comparative/competitive to driving as far as speed and time - I do not view it as "slow train travel".

That said, another reason some take the train is because they don't want the hassle of driving and traffic - has nothing to do with air travel at all.

Hope your project goes well and look forward to seeing what the results/conclusion are for your thesis/theory/question.

 

[hlcteacher]

you left out people who rather NOT be up in the air or just be comfortable travelling...we have been taking the train for many years...long before retirement...and i cannot help but wonder if your slanted "research" includes people who take the bus

 

[Barb Stout]

you left out people who rather NOT be up in the air or just be comfortable travelling...we have been taking the train for many years...long before retirement...and i cannot help but wonder if your slanted "research" includes people who take the bus

I think his/her first bullet point covers that: "people who do not like to fly". But yes, one of the reasons I prefer train to plane travel is being squashed into the torture chairs they have on the planes. And I'm a small person at 4'11". How a regular or large person can handle it is beyond me.

 

[happycamper]

Many taking the long distance trains are not taking them long distance. You see many on the Sunset Limited for instance taking it from New Orleans to Houston or San Antonio. Some take it from NO to LA in coach for the price verses flying. Most in coach seem to be taking the Sunset limited not for leisure travel but a low cost way of getting to see family or friends along the route. If I had known more about train travel (it is not advertised and few have any ideas about it in TX) I would have done it more when I was younger as a great way to see the US. I think if it was advertised more they would have alot more business. Also needed is parking available that is secure. Most parking at train stations are not secure as they are in not nice parts of town or simply platforms and Houston station has only 3 spots for parking to leave your car there unsecured and they are first come first serve so cant do that as you wont know if you will even have a spot when trying to catch your train or a car when you return. :O LOL So I think you need more categories as many on long distance trains are people getting to and from cities in between cheaply and quickly.

 

[87YJ]

And then those that the TSA say "no fly".

 

[BalmyZephyr]

I think his/her first bullet point covers that: "people who do not like to fly". But yes, one of the reasons I prefer train to plane travel is being squashed into the torture chairs they have on the planes. And I'm a small person at 4'11". How a regular or large person can handle it is beyond me.

One day we were on the NE Regional and started noticing tall people. My husband said, What's with all the tall people? Finally we said, duh, they are too tall to fly, their legs literally won't fit.

 

[dwebarts]

My legs can't handle sitting too long, which makes flying tough. I usually spring for "comfort plus" or equivalent for the extra legroom. Trans-Atlantic or trans-Pacific flights result in my spending a lot of time near the galley and having to let other passengers know I'm not in line for the bathroom.

With train travel, I can pace to my heart's content. I grew up taking a lot of ferries so my "sea legs" instincts carry over fairly well to "rail legs" on the bumpier routes.

 

[tgstubbs1]

Amtrak has a much more liberal baggage limit than airlines.

Those ultra cheap air flights allow a purse or laptop and the clothes on your back. Any extra weight costs.

Sometimes people need to carry more.
A bike or scooter, laptop, a couple of bags. Maybe a musical instrument or sports equipment.

 

[Cal]

I fall into one of the categories. I am a railfan, have loved trains since I was a year old, and enjoy riding them. Something about the sound of gliding on the tracks and being able to see other trains is just soothing to me. And, unlike many people my age, I do enjoy seeing America, we have a beautiful country and the train allows you to be immersed in it in a stress-free environment. And living in one of the biggest urban areas in the US, it's fascinating to see small cities with just a few hundred people.

 

[flitcraft]

Your thesis, that being slow and inconvenient, Amtrak's LD service doesn't appeal to most Americans, is better stated as "Amtrak's LD service isn't practical for most Americans." American workers get vastly less paid vacation time than workers in other industrialized nations. To take one example, my Brit ex-pat husband got 6 weeks paid vacation in the UK, came to work at a similar job in Seattle and got 1 week paid vacation to start. Worked there another 35 years and ended with 2 weeks' vacation at retirement. Given the stingy vacation time that most Americans get, spending a good chunk of it getting to and from where you are going is always going to be a non-starter. Add in the potential for delays, further eating into precious vacation time, and Amtrak is even less practical.

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

Yea I think the term “slow train travel” is off show your biases. If not a full out Troll.

I travel by train, cause I have to get someplace. Only in Europe I have travel by train for the experience. Each class of train has it plus and down sides. It’s not like you have a choice in this country. Try going from Albany to Dallas your choice of type of train is nonexistent.

Why not fly? I do when I have to. Or if there a reason to. My funds and my time preferred the train.

 

[eklein]

Several years ago I was riding alone in an LD train (I think it was Chicago to D.C.) and my mind wandered to the very same topic that you have presented here--namely, who are the typical folks riding Amtrak. I agree with your grouping, but would like to suggest one more. Let me explain. I had booked a roomette on the lower level and noted a mother/daughter pair in the roomette immediately across from mine. The thing about these two was that they both were greatly over-weight. In fact, they did not even use their upper and lower beds during the night, but carefully positioned themselves so that they could sleep sitting up facing each other. They left their door open, and that is why I can report this observation.

So my additional group might be something like this: Folks who because of weight or some kind of physical injury or handicap, find the travel by train to be an easier public method of travel than any other.

 

[Qapla]

So my additional group might be something like this: Folks who because of weight or some kind of physical injury or handicap

Perhaps a better word might be "Folks who because of weight size" ... I once rode one of the Silvers and met a guy who was going all the way to Minnesota ... by coach. He was a young guy - early 20's/ He was quite fit and did not have a handicap ... however, he was 6'11" and said he preferred the train because he hated riding in cramped plane seats or busses and even found most cars a bit of a challenge for a long trip.

 

[webtraveler]

TheVig said:
I’m a high energy 24/7 person. Traveling by train is about the only way I can switch off and relax.

I fit here as well. We generally drive but me being the driver most of the time I miss the relaxation part. I also have used it as part of my vacation to avoid driving. Planes are faster for sure but add in all the time at airports and dodging traffic, then being packed in like sardines and it just is not my preferred method of travel. I have also never have had my bags lost or delayed on a train, even when the train splits for two destinations.

 

[Lana J C]

I agree with TLcooper, all types of people ride long distance trains. On the portion of the SW Chief I usually ride I dont find it slow or inconvenient. Quite the opposite. I'm not afraid of flying, but I admit I dont like being in a narrow seat with someone too big for their seat hanging over into mine, who does. I could fly out of a nearby airport and into Kansas City where my family has to drive an hour each way to pick me up, sometimes in rush hour traffic. OR I could drive the 870 miles eating junkfood while driving, with a motel stop where I wont get a good rest. Or I can drive a few hours through some beautiful country to Santa Fe/Lamy, NM or Trinidad, CO, board the train, have a decent dinner with a glass of wine while the train continues eastward, take a shower, sleep well, wakeu up outside KC. There I have a quick connection to the Missouri Riverrunner, and I arrive in the morning at a station 10 minutes from my sister's home Easy. Convenient. Same travel time as driving but without the e extra 8 hours having to stop to sleep. The return trip also crosses Kansas at nite. Wake up to big views, have breakfast, and a nice drive back to my home.

 

[neroden]

people who do not like to fly (or are afraid to, or cannot for religious or cultural reasons, such as Amish)

You missed "people who are physically injured by flying", which includes my girlfriend with rheumatoid arthritis. Flying is terrible for her arthritis. Amtrak is fine. Amtrak attracts a lot of disabled people. "Can't fly / won't fly" is actually a very large category with a lot of subcategories, and you don't want to accidentally leave out major subcategories like that.

You also left out "can't drive / won't drive". Similar situation. Again, driving is bad for my girlfriend with rheumatoid arthritis; trains are fine. I also have met multiple blind and legally-blind passenger rail advocates who take trains because driving is not possible for them. I've also met people who have long records of car crashes who decided to take trains instead of risking another crash.

Which leads us to another category: many people take trains because they can drink and take the train, but they can't drink and drive. This one's actually pretty large. It's a specific (drunken) subcategory of "the train is a more relaxing way to travel".

And with regards to driving, there are people who simply don't like to drive long distances, but will take the train.

The comparison with driving is particularly significant for the budget-sensitive and for those with a large amount of luggage, and also for those who are travelling on routes which are extremely indirect by air (sometimes Amtrak runs direct between two cities, while the air route involves three or more legs). Amtrak is frequently competing with driving, not with flying, even on routes like the Empire Builder, and definitely on routes like the Lake Shore Limited.

Often the train is preferred over flying because flying requires driving to the airport at each end, which is often an hour outside of town, while the train station is often downtown. So again, driving is a relevant comparison even when comparing to flying.

So your categories are some of the categories, but very incomplete -- hope adding these will help you. There's a lot of subcategories of can't-fly/won't-fly and of can't-drive/won't-drive, and of "the train is a more relaxing way to travel".

Practically none of the people in any of these categories actually want the train to be slow; we'd all like it to be faster. Maybe not so fast we can't see out the window (as previously noted, some HSR lines are so fast everything is a blur, and others are in tunnels almost the entire way), but faster than Amtrak usually is.

 

[neroden]

Am I missing anyone? Or am I oversimplifying something that is really way more complex?

Yes and yes. See my previous comment.

A large part of the situation is that driving is actually very unfriendly to a large part of the population, and so is flying. Features of flying or driving which are intolerable to significant subpopulations -- particularly disabled populations, but also, as noted, people carrying violins, people with bad driving records, people who get harassed by the TSA -- are not present on the train, and so people accept the tradeoff of delayed trains and undesirably low speeds in exchange for the much greater comfort and flexibility.

It's one reason advocates for train travel fight back really hard when attempts are made to impose some of the asinine and hostile treatment applied to air passengers to trains. A lot of people are *on* the train in order to get away from that. So that they can get up, pace, stretch in the aisles. So that they can bring their own special food and water onboard. Etc.

There's also the facts of why people take a train rather than a bus, which is also very interesting. First is the much smoother ride (less motion sickness); second is the usual higher standards of amenities; but one which is often forgotten is that bus drivers can, and do, get LOST. This doesn't happen to trains. This is why my mother avoids buses, but likes trains!

But first and foremost I think you have to reconsider your premise that "long distance Amtrak is inconvenient". Which is more convenient? I go to Chicago Union Station, bring whatever I like in my luggage (including snacks), get into a roomette on the Lake Shore Limited, go to bed in an actual bed, wake up in Syracuse. Or I spend an hour heading out to the Chicago O'Hare airport, march through the enormous airport, wait through harassment by TSA, cram into a small airplane without my water bottle, and fly next to a very loud engine for several hours before getting to Syracuse airport, motion-sick and dizzy. New York City examples are more extreme. Amtrak is *slower* than flying, but if you're not in a raging hurry, it may well be *more convenient*.

And I think that's the key: for people who value something other than raw speed, Amtrak long-distance travel has a lot more convenience. Commercial airplane travel is incredibly inconvenient these days!

 

[Qapla]

The list also does not include those who take the train to save money.

Example:


As can be seen, you can ride coach overnight to travel from Jacksonville, Fl to Raliegh, NC for $57 (these are not the only city pairs with low rates) and sleep in the coach seat during the trip. True, it is not as comfortable as a sleeper - but, there are many who do this very thing every night on Amtrak trains across the nation.

They are not being "attracted to slow trains" ... they are attracted by affordable prices and comfortable, roomy seats.

 

[Chas]

I like seeing something other than clouds. I like reading or working on a laptop -- I once set up a new account for my websites with a hosting service while rolling along on the Lakeshore Limited on my way to Boston. I like the "parallel universe" feeling of train travel. And I don't miss TSA, airport parking, overworked ticket agents, and all the misery of the commercial air travel experience.

 

[neroden]

If I were to come up with a unified theme, I'd say "train travel is more comfortable". Of course, if you're breaking that down as you might want to in a psych class, there are a lot of very specific reasons why different people find it more comfortable than flying, or driving, or taking a bus, but I do think that most would agree that they fall under the broad category of "comfort".

For people with arthritis, or vision impairments, or motion sickness, or special dietary needs, or many other scenarios I haven't listed, these can be serious enough differences in comfort to rule out flying or driving entirely -- if flying is torture or driving is a nightmare, you don't do it. For others, it can simply be a matter of preference.

 

[Ziv]

I hear you about speeding up the slow parts. I remember being nearly an hour ahead of schedule on the Crescent as we got to Hattiesburg. And then we slooowwweeeedddd dddowwnnn... And I think we actually Y'ed before we got to New Orleans. We were going backwards past concrete grave sites, and I was just bemused. Made me think about the acid scene from Easy Rider.
And we kept getting later and later. I was going to the Lafayette so it wasn't critical but I was kind of irritated nonetheless.

The solution is not trying to get a few more MPH. Instead work on eliminating the slow sections. Changing a 1 mile slow section of 20 - 30 MPH to 79 MPH would save 5 - 10 minutes including slowing before slow section and then accelerating out.

The infrastructure bill seemed to indicate that some funds for upgrading tracks probably slow sections?

 

[UserNameRequired]

-Not afraid to fly, dislike commercial flying though. Being 1 hour away from the closest Class C airport, 2 hours for TSA, always having to take connecting flights where one needs to go. General aviation is my preferred way to travel though! It is like a time machine and freedom at the same time, as long as the weather cooperates. Don’t mind driving, have driven to NYC, Florida, Washington state, Arizona, etc.

-No great love of train travel but no dislike either.

-Not retired, but when choosing jobs I choose one with 6 weeks of vacation a year. Respect for those who choose a job with 1 or 2 weeks a year!

-The closest Amtrak station is 30 minutes further than our closest class C airport.

Interested in Amtrak for the experience. Our first trip is booked for next August. I enjoy older movies on TCM, and North by Northwest sealed the deal to try Amtrak whenever our next long distance travel needed to happen. The porters, the fold up bed, the food, the scenery, the bathrooms and showers in the bedrooms, the experience.

 

[SarahZ]

Which leads us to another category: many people take trains because they can drink and take the train, but they can't drink and drive. This one's actually pretty large. It's a specific (drunken) subcategory of "the train is a more relaxing way to travel".

A Wolverine full of Lions fans on their way to a Lions-Bears game (or vice versa) is a sight to behold.

"Not being okay to drive" leads us to another reason - weather. It's not long distance, but I prefer taking the train to Chicago and other areas of the Midwest during the winter so I don't have to deal with the weather and a bunch of amateur winter drivers. The train to Chicago is actually the same speed (or a bit faster than) driving, but I'd much rather read my book and relax than play go-karts on I-94.

 

[joelkfla]

I prefer the train, but when I have to fly because of time or money constraints, I fly Southwest. In the words of Southwest, I am a "customer of size", meaning I am wider than the space between the armrests. AFAIK, Southwest is the only U.S. airline that allows customers of size to purchase 2 seats, and always get a refund on one of them after the flight. And since they don't reserve seats, they also allow customers of size to preboard to be sure of getting 2 seats.

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

At first, I was afraid other passengers would think I was being selfish taking up 2 seats, but in fact I've been thanked for being considerate.