Why aren't overnight trains able to compete with flying?

[railiner]

In 1961.
What has happened, why does life have less promise now.
I could not care less about billionaire space junkets, or electric car tunnels.
Why can't we have train travel options that are as good as 60 or 80 years ago?

In a 'nutshell'....you were simply born too late....

 

[jruff001]

Why can't we have train travel options that are as good as 60 or 80 years ago?

Why can't I cross the country by covered wagon anymore?

 

[crescent-zephyr]

Why can't I cross the country by covered wagon anymore?

Do you feel that long distance train travel is compared to travel by covered wagon in any way?

 

[sttom]

Why can't I cross the country by covered wagon anymore?

You still can, with 90% less dysentery. You'd just have to get a horse, wagon and consult a map.

 

[jruff001]

You still can, with 90% less dysentery. You'd just have to get a horse, wagon and consult a map.

Well of course I meant why isn't anyone selling such a service anymore (as I am sure you knew).

But if we are going the DIY route, why not just build your own railroad from NYC to CHI and recreate your own 20th Century Limited. Problem solved!

 

[jruff001]

Do you feel that long distance train travel is compared to travel by covered wagon in any way?

Yes. It is about as obsolete.

But I still enjoy it.

 

[crescent-zephyr]

Yes. It is about as obsolete.

But I still enjoy it.

Why is it obsolete?

 

[MARC Rider]

I challenge the NYP <> CHI assumptions. There might be a large contingent for intermediate stations. Detroit, Toledo, Cleveland, Erie? Buffalo. from either CHI or NYP airline service is not as convenient.

I agree. A lot of my Capitol Limited trips were from Washington to Ann Arbor, which involved getting off at Toledo.

 

[MARC Rider]

Why can't I cross the country by covered wagon anymore?

Well, you can still take a stagecoach. It's just called an "intercity motor coach."

 

[MARC Rider]

Well of course I meant why isn't anyone selling such a service anymore (as I am sure you knew).

Nobody ever "sold" a covered wagon service. You bought your own wagon and drove it yourself. (Actually, I think most of the passengers walked, as that was more comfortable than riding in a wagon on rutted trails without springs or shock absorbers.) Okay, I guess you had to pay to join a wagon train with a guide and protection from bandits and also Indians who were justifiably ticked off at the white intruders on their lands.

But nowadays, you can still drive your own vehicle coast to coast. And the roads are a lot better. Not to mention the food options along the way. And the vehicles are faster and more reliable, and are even air conditioned.

 

[MARC Rider]

Yes. It is about as obsolete.

But I still enjoy it.

Long distance trains aren't "obsolete," it's just that they don't need to be as fast as they used to be for the service they provide. Actually, back in the good old days, most long-distance trains weren't as fast as the few super express trains for the business traveler or the rich. Congress supports the service as a transportation alternative to connect small towns in rural areas with larger towns and cities. The long distance travelers are not the primary user target, but, of course, they provide some financial gravy to help support the train's operation. None of these people need super fast service, although it might help to at least have a consistent 50 mph end-to-end average speed.

 

[Tlcooper44]

Yes. It is about as obsolete.

But I still enjoy it.

such a blanket statement is not accurate. For most other countries around the world (even those with large airline/airport infrastructure), long distance, reliable train travel is available.

moreover, long distance trains serve intermediate destinations (as stated over and over again if you read).

the “trains are obsolete argument” holds about as much weight as the “airplanes are obsolete” argument. No one would fly as much if we were stuck flying Lockheed Constellations everywhere. If the tech was never further developed (much the way American trains were not), airplanes would not be dominant.

amtrak currently runs the equivalent of Lockheed Constellations for their LD fleet while the rest of the world (China, Europe and Japan especially) has progressed to the equivalent of 747’s and beyond.

 

[Qapla]

Since cars and highways are nowhere near as fast as planes ... I guess roads and cars are obsolete, too

 

[Old MM]

Why can't I cross the country by covered wagon anymore?

Why can't I cross the country by covered wagon anymore?

Why do you think that was a clever comment?

 

[jloewen]

Long distance trains aren't "obsolete," it's just that they don't need to be as fast as they used to be for the service they provide. Actually, back in the good old days, most long-distance trains weren't as fast as the few super express trains for the business traveler or the rich. Congress supports the service as a transportation alternative to connect small towns in rural areas with larger towns and cities. The long distance travelers are not the primary user target, but, of course, they provide some financial gravy to help support the train's operation. None of these people need super fast service, although it might help to at least have a consistent 50 mph end-to-end average speed.

Darn it, here's the lack of vision problem. Amtrak IS competitive with air travel for business in several places, IF it were reliably on time. And if it went as fast as, say, the Magnolia Star on the ICRR in 1970, it would be MORE competitive with air travel. Consider: I was on the Magnolia Star when it was traveling at between 110 and 115MPH between Du Quoin and Mattoon (IL). Makin' up time. That portion of the trip was SCHEDULED at 81 MPH incl. stops. OK, now apply that running speed, achievable routinely in 1970, to, say, the Capitol Limited. Voila! Even if parts of the journey cannot support 81 MPH with stops, still we would have a train that left WAS just in time for dinner, say 5:05PM, reached Pittsburgh well before 11PM, and pulled in to Union Station at 7AM. The ONLY way to get to the Loop at 7AM by flying requires going out to one of 3 airports at say 5:05PM, getting to the airport at 6:05PM (DCA, the others take longer), going thru security by 6:25PM, having the required time to spare (because security can foul up and take much longer), eating dinner at a fairly bad and fairly expensive restaurant, then taking a plane at say 8:55PM, arriving at O'Hare at 9:55PM CDT, taking CTA (or a taxi or limo or ...) at 10:20PM, arriving at hotel at say 11:15PM local time.... You get the idea. Indeed, the Capitol Ltd. is ALREADY competitive with air to Chicago, to NW IN (S Bend, etc.), and even Milwaukee.
And if I'm wrong about the restaurant, DO tell me where to eat at DCA! I'm open for ideas!

 

[jruff001]

such a blanket statement is not accurate. For most other countries around the world (even those with large airline/airport infrastructure), long distance, reliable train travel is available.

Sorry I wasn't clear (even though this is the "Amtrak Rail Discussion" sub-forum, and there is a different sub-forum for a discussion of international rail). I was talking about Amtrak, in the U.S., today.

 

[MARC Rider]

Darn it, here's the lack of vision problem. Amtrak IS competitive with air travel for business in several places,

OK, maybe between New York and Washington, and also between LA and San Francisco if they ever finish CAHSR, and the Midwest corridors if they improve the speeds and reliability. According the Amtrak, the Cascades actually compete with air travel between Portland and Seattle, which is a bit of a mystery to me, although these two cities are so close together, why would anyone want to fly the distance. And maybe a few more city pairs, and also the trains may be competitive in some smaller markets where there isn't good air service and multiple connections are needed. But the point is that in most of these cases, these would be day trains.

As far as overnight services, there may be room to build some market for business travelers, but it's always going to be a niche market. I say this as someone who, indeed, has traveled overnight on Amtrak for business. The vast majority of travelers, if presented with a choice of 4-5 hours of dealing with getting to the airport, airport formalities, a flight of 1-2 hours, and the airport stuff on the other end, will chose that over 9-10 hours in a sleeping car, no matter how nice it is and how good the service they get. And most people for these sort of short trips don't need any sort of food service, they'll either eat before the go to the airport or when they get into town.

Let's face it, the days of the fast streamliners for overnight business trips are over and have been for half a century. While it might be possible to provide such service, it's always going to be a much lower priority for Amtrak and its paymasters (i.e. the states and Congress). I'm satisfied that we can still enjoy at least a simulacrum of old-style long-distance train travel on a few selected routes. But the future of passenger rail is really for shorter distances, going faster and more frequently between large population centers.

 

[Tlcooper44]

Sorry I wasn't clear (even though this is the "Amtrak Rail Discussion" sub-forum, and there is a different sub-forum for a discussion of international rail). I was talking about Amtrak, in the U.S., today.

I’m well aware of the sub-divisions of the forum. It is up to you to make yourself clear, as all forums are very loosely bound to their respective general topics.

 

[sttom]

Well of course I meant why isn't anyone selling such a service anymore (as I am sure you knew).

But if we are going the DIY route, why not just build your own railroad from NYC to CHI and recreate your own 20th Century Limited. Problem solved!

People bought or made their own wagon back then, it's not like they strolled down to Enterprise to rent one. Also, roads are generally owned by the public, the railways largely aren't.

Yes. It is about as obsolete.

But I still enjoy it.

Railways are not obselete, shoving 90% of trips into cars is not healthy. Expanding highways is like solving obesity by loosening your belt. You know the "modern" technology. Our rail system is deficient, not obselete.

 

[crescent-zephyr]

Railways are not obselete, shoving 90% of trips into cars is not healthy. Expanding highways is like solving obesity by loosening your belt. You know the "modern" technology. Our rail system is deficient, not obselete.

Air travel is also super impractical and terrible for the environment for short jumps.

 

[jiml]

Air travel is also super impractical and terrible for the environment for short jumps.

An important observation that often gets overlooked.

 

[MARC Rider]

Air travel is also super impractical and terrible for the environment for short jumps.

Not just short jump. Long distance air travel might be practical in the short term, but it's just as bad for the environment and has the added "benefit" of facilitating the worldwide spread of disease. A virus can now travel to anywhere on the planet in less than 24 hours.

 

[toddinde]

Why can't I cross the country by covered wagon anymore?

That is an absurd response because overnight trains are thriving in Europe and are very competitive with flying. You’re response indicates a 1950s mentality that isn’t reflective of the population growth in America and the inability of highways and our aviation system to keep pace. It’s not possible for them to do so at a reasonable cost. Night trains don’t require the huge investment in super high speed rail. They can provide a pleasant and convenient way to travel between cities reasonably spaced apart. You’re living in the past. Maybe that’s why you used the covered wagon analogy.

 

[toddinde]

People bought or made their own wagon back then, it's not like they strolled down to Enterprise to rent one. Also, roads are generally owned by the public, the railways largely aren't.



Railways are not obselete, shoving 90% of trips into cars is not healthy. Expanding highways is like solving obesity by loosening your belt. You know the "modern" technology. Our rail system is deficient, not obselete.

Absolutely right. The US continues to fall further and further behind its peer competitors because of its fixation on highways and aviation. Our quality of life is much lower, and our detrimental environmental impact much greater, because of our obsolete approach to transportation. We’re stuck in the ‘70s while the world races past us.

 

[Tlcooper44]

Not just short jump. Long distance air travel might be practical in the short term, but it's just as bad for the environment and has the added "benefit" of facilitating the worldwide spread of disease. A virus can now travel to anywhere on the planet in less than 24 hours.

The short haul flight industry needs to end...
It really only exists to the level it does in this country alone. If we are serious about climate, we have to change that.

That is an absurd response because overnight trains are thriving in Europe and are very competitive with flying. You’re response indicates a 1950s mentality that isn’t reflective of the population growth in America and the inability of highways and our aviation system to keep pace. It’s not possible for them to do so at a reasonable cost. Night trains don’t require the huge investment in super high speed rail. They can provide a pleasant and convenient way to travel between cities reasonably spaced apart. You’re living in the past. Maybe that’s why you used the covered wagon analogy.

Put better than I could have said it!