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

[neroden]

Actually, in addition to LA-San Diego, Cascades, and the Milwaukee and Detroit routes from Chicago, I know that Harrisburg-Philadelphia, Albany-NYC, and Springfield MA-New Haven-NYC are pretty well-known and people aren't surprised if you take them.

 

[crescent-zephyr]

Oh yeah - definitely the Harrisburg line.

 

[MARC Rider]

Financial gold mines, no. Less money losing and small profit, potentially. Railroads didn't even want to try to compete in the 50s and were happy to cede as much of the market as they could get away with by and large until Amtrak was created. Some railroads figured in the 30s that cars would be a threat over time and still put up a good show after World War 2. The Great Northern was one of them.

This also doesn't take away from the fact that most railroads didn't put money into services that could turn a profit. Which were shorter segments where traffic was already becoming a problem and were too short to fly. They essential only kept the routes they had to. The railroad industry at this point and arguably American companies to this day are not run by the most competent people, but the laziest and greediest people possible.

I think that back in the 1950s and 1960s many railroad executives didn't even think that freight rail had much of a future, and their business strategy, such as it was, was to liquidate the "loser" railroad operations and then make money by liquidating their real-estate holdings and investing in other stuff. This is why Penn Station in New York is an underground warren and Madison Square Garden and an office building are sitting on top of it. They almost tried to do the same to Grand Central Terminal, but the preservationists were able to stop them. The successors to the Penn Central are now, more or less, a diversified financial services company, and a real estate company. Of course, in today's America much more money can be made in various forms of dealmaking than can be made by providing useful goods and services.

 

[zephyr17]

Well, Warren Buffett saw enough in BNSF to buy it completely and take it private. So there's that.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

What a horrible strategy. If the Democrats ignore Manchin and Sinema on matters with no Republican support absolutely nothing will pass. Like it or not, their votes are needed. There is nothing “squishy” or “spineless” about being accountable to your constituents. That’s how a democracy supposed to work.

Outside of budgets and confirmations the Senate is essentially deadlocked for the foreseeable future. If that's how democracy is supposed to work then I don't know what to say. I'm not that surprised by Manchin but Sinema blasted other senators for failing to work around the filibuster only to bend with the wind and follow in their footsteps. Rather than keep her constituents happy she's painting herself into a corner where primary supporters no longer approve of her performance (28/61) and general election support is being undermined by a growing number of voter restrictions. As her path for reelection evaporates Sinema continues to rail against state regulators and supreme courts while pretending she has no role to play other than waiting for McConnell to give her permission to vote her conscience.

 

[Bob Dylan]

Outside of budgets and confirmations the Senate is essentially deadlocked for the foreseeable future. If that's how democracy is supposed to work then I don't know what to say. I'm not that surprised by Manchin but Sinema blasted other senators for failing to work around the filibuster only to bend with the wind and follow in their footsteps. Rather than keep her constituents happy she's painting herself into a corner where primary supporters no longer approve of her performance (28/61) and general election support is being undermined by a growing number of voter restrictions. As her path for reelection evaporates Sinema continues to rail against state regulators and supreme courts while pretending she has no role to play other than waiting for McConnell to give her permission to vote her conscience.

Manchin and Sinema-
DINO= Democrats In Name Only

 

[jebr]

Also... eventually we as humans will have to admit that the environment matters. When that happens there will be more of a reason for passenger rail.

Well, electrified passenger rail, anyways. I'm honestly not super-convinced that taking a roomette outside of the NEC today, where we're still using diesel engines, is all that much better than taking a commercial flight somewhere. Until we build electric rail infrastructure on more Amtrak routes (where the trains can take advantage of improvements to the electric grid's carbon footprint) I don't think the argument that a roomette is super green compared to a coach (or domestic first) flight holds up.

There's also the simple logistics of overnight trains not always working out well for business travelers, especially large market to large market. Do I really want to have to prep for the business meeting in a roomette, when I could have a hotel room instead? Do I want to have to store my luggage somewhere until I can check in to my room, versus coming the night before and being settled into my hotel room already? It might make sense for a day business trip if trains are run reliably on-time, but once you have to start looking at hotels anyways, it seems a lot harder to argue against the ability to settle in the night before, or to have one extra night at home before catching that early-morning flight.

There's certainly a market for sleeper trains, but I think it has to work to catch leisure travelers, either on cost savings (which Amtrak doesn't really do these days, at least once you start looking at a roomette) or on experience. There'll be some business travelers who'll tag along, but I think the market is just easier to grab on the leisure side (where you can sell an experience or try to compete on a barebones price) versus the business side where an extra $50-$100 for a "real bed that isn't moving" would be considered a worthwhile expense.

 

[crescent-zephyr]

Well, electrified passenger rail, anyways. I'm honestly not super-convinced that taking a roomette outside of the NEC today, where we're still using diesel engines, is all that much better than taking a commercial flight somewhere.

Rail travel is wayyyyy more efficient than air travel. If you’re not convinced than you’re not educated at all on the subject.

 

[Qapla]

they only started trying to kill off passenger trains once it became clear to them that passenger trains were a money-losing proposition

There is a difference in something being a "money-losing proposition" and something that doesn't make the desired profit. I do not know if the railroads of yesteryear were actually losing money on their passenger routes or if they claimed that because they didn't make the profit percentage they desired. I'll illustrate what I mean:

I used to work for a man who used to be the manager for a local "free paper" that was owned by a large newspaper company. They wanted to sell the local paper because it wasn't "making money" and they needed to divest it. No one was buying so they were considering just shutting it down. He was wondering what he was going to do when this job ended. He had a meeting with a company representative about the future of the local paper and the guy told him, "Why don't you buy it?"

His response was along the lines of why would he want a company that was losing money and going out of business. The rep told him that the paper was making money ... and he showed him the proof. He discovered that the local paper was making a profit of just under a million dollars a year. The parent company viewed any subsidiary that made less than a million profit a year as "losing money" and would divest it.

He bought the paper. He still owns it and still prints publications even with the Internet. He has made vast amounts of money, from his point of view, even though he made less than $1,000,000 profit a year.

So, were the freight railroads actually "losing" money or just not making "enough profit" for the bean counters?

 

[crescent-zephyr]

So, were the freight railroads actually "losing" money or just not making "enough profit" for the bean counters?

Bingo. The freight trains were making plenty of money before progressive railroading.... but those in power wanted more. Progressive Railroading shouldn’t be legal but here we are.

 

[nendee]

Rail travel is wayyyyy more efficient than air travel. If you’re not convinced than you’re not educated at all on the subject.

United Airlines to buy 100 Electric planes for regional routes

 

[railiner]

Although still a long way off, the day is getting closer to when battery technology will meet and perhaps even exceed carbon-fuel storage capability. Not to mention the ability to recharge in motion during sunlight....

 

[Ferroequinologist]

Chicago area (Chicago to Milwaukee, Detroit, St. Louis, etc)

I believe Chicago to Milwaukee but to Saint Louis? I have my doubts that many business people take the train as far as Saint Louis.

 

[Ferroequinologist]

LA-San Diego.

This is possible but limited compared to the NE Corridor. The last time I rode it I saw two men in my coach who appeared to be on business. Everyone else looked like casual travelers. It was a weekday and the train was not very full. Pre Covid NE Corridor trains were packed with business people.

 

[Ferroequinologist]

Actually, in addition to LA-San Diego, Cascades, and the Milwaukee and Detroit routes from Chicago, I know that Harrisburg-Philadelphia, Albany-NYC, and Springfield MA-New Haven-NYC are pretty well-known and people aren't surprised if you take them.

Philadelphia-Harrisburg is really an extension of the NE Corridor. You're right they are used by business people, including some state legislators. Albany-New York probably gets some business people too. Not sure about Springfield-New Haven.

 

[Exvalley]

Do I really want to have to prep for the business meeting in a roomette, when I could have a hotel room instead? Do I want to have to store my luggage somewhere until I can check in to my room, versus coming the night before and being settled into my hotel room already? It might make sense for a day business trip if trains are run reliably on-time, but once you have to start looking at hotels anyways, it seems a lot harder to argue against the ability to settle in the night before, or to have one extra night at home before catching that early-morning flight.

The one challenge for me is that there is no access to an ironing board and iron on the train. What I usually do (and it is a pain), is have my next days' suit and shirt on hangars with a plastic cleaner bag over them - but not in my garment bag. They are usually straight from the dry cleaner, so if I hang them up in the roomette they are in perfect shape for the next day. But it is a pain to lug that through the train station, especially when you have another bag. I have yet to figure out a way to put clothes into a garment bag without some sort of wrinkling - even if I do not have to fold the garment bag over.

Rail travel is wayyyyy more efficient than air travel. If you’re not convinced than you’re not educated at all on the subject.

You really can't make a blanket statement like that. I recall seeing some very good analysis from a pilot on this forum. The short version is that "it depends." If you are traveling from Chicago to the west coast, Amtrak burns more fuel per passenger than modern aircraft do. This is mostly because Amtrak uses old, dirty locomotives. The environmental advantage of rail travel increases as the trip shortens.

So if you really want to be "educated" on the subject, you need to admit that the train is not always the most environmentally friendly option. It usually is... but not always.

 

[Qapla]

Like I have mentioned a few times on this forum - I don't fly ... so, I don't know all the ins-and-outs of flying. That said, reading many of the comments about the difference in flying and passenger trains on this forum and in this thread ... I would get the idea only leisure travel is done on the train with very little business people and that planes are totally full of business travelers and hardly any people fly for other reasons or purposes.

The point is - there is room for both modes of travel in this country if people would quit making it into a "fly or train" battle with only one "winner" and the other ceasing operation. Why not support and improve both!?!

 

[jebr]

Rail travel is wayyyyy more efficient than air travel. If you’re not convinced than you’re not educated at all on the subject.

According to Amtrak's "Travel Green" website, they state that Amtrak is 34% more energy efficient than flying, and "up to 73% fewer emissions." The emissions claim is unsourced and has an up-to, while the 34% more energy efficient comes from the 2021 U.S. Department of Energy Data Book. That publication has a warning on both graphs that talk about it (the main one, not including power distribution losses, and the secondary one that includes power distribution losses):

"Great care should be taken when comparing modal energy intensity data among modes. Because of the inherent differences among the transportation modes in the nature of services, routes available, and many additional factors, it is not possible to obtain truly comparable national energy intensities among modes. These values are averages, and there is a great deal of variability even within a mode."

Given that rail isn't leaps and bounds more efficient than air on the sourced claim, I think it's reasonable to infer that there are instances where particular Amtrak trips in particular classes of service may be less efficient than particular air trips in particular classes of service - where the mode used on Amtrak is particularly energy-intensive (say, a sleeper compartment which uses diesel engines and is not terribly dense, and with current dining services also has to account for the diesel used by the dining car) and the mode used in the air is somewhat less energy-intensive than the average (maybe not domestic first, but domestic coach on a mainline jet on a longer flight is likely more energy-efficient than the average air mile, since the average also includes small turboprop planes, higher passenger-mile emissions for short hops, etc.)

It's important to note that I'm not saying that rail travel in general is less efficient than air travel in general (clearly rail travel is better on average,) and rail certainly has a clearer path to getting to low/zero emissions (electrifying the rail network moves emissions to the electric grid, which looks to be moving to zero-carbon by mid-century in many places.) With how the landscape looks today, though, I'm not sure the argument is as strong for the efficiency of traveling in a sleeper car pulled by a diesel locomotive over air travel, particularly mainline jet travel. I'm not convinced that jet travel is significantly better, either, just that they're probably in the same ballpark.

 

[crescent-zephyr]

I would get the idea only leisure travel is done on the train with very little business people and that planes are totally full of business travelers and hardly any people fly for other reasons or purposes.

I’ve never seen airplanes full of business travelers. Certainly you’ll see business travelers on an airplane but there are many routes (Orlando, Vegas) where you’re likely to see all tourists.

 

[jiml]

Although still a long way off, the day is getting closer to when battery technology will meet and perhaps even exceed carbon-fuel storage capability. Not to mention the ability to recharge in motion during sunlight....

The problem with battery technology is only now the environmental impact of manufacturing them and disposing of old ones starting to get attention. Advocating them as the ideal replacement for fossil fuels may amount to short-term virtue signalling more than actual practicality.

 

[sttom]

I think that back in the 1950s and 1960s many railroad executives didn't even think that freight rail had much of a future, and their business strategy, such as it was, was to liquidate the "loser" railroad operations and then make money by liquidating their real-estate holdings and investing in other stuff. This is why Penn Station in New York is an underground warren and Madison Square Garden and an office building are sitting on top of it. They almost tried to do the same to Grand Central Terminal, but the preservationists were able to stop them. The successors to the Penn Central are now, more or less, a diversified financial services company, and a real estate company. Of course, in today's America much more money can be made in various forms of dealmaking than can be made by providing useful goods and services.

Depends on the railroad and depends on when. Some railroads like the Chicago Great Western figured they'd be on the short end of the stick in 1945 and others didn't face problems until much later. The UP and BN were such examples of facing problems later. From what I can tell, people say there was some ethos of imminent death in the 50s that everyone knew about, whether or not there was is not something that seems to have made it into the historical record. Some railroads like the CNW were notoriously cheap throughout their existence and American business managers tend to lean that way anyways regardless of on going conditions. We can see it now with businesses refusing to hire people when others quit which snow balls into entire Burger Kings not having staff or the on going issues with the Post Office. The railroads did this too, Don Russel with the SP was one such problem. He was cheap and figured coupling that with an efficiency drive would save the SP in the long run. And this was in the 50s, they weren't in the "oh my God we're dying!" state of mind yet. As for boneheaded decisions, one case study that surprisingly isn't one is the Rock Island, Milwaukee Road and Chicago & Northwestern all pinning their hopes on merging with Union Pacific to save them. Two of the three didn't have contingency plans and died eventually with that as a contributing factor.

 

[crescent-zephyr]

I'm not sure the argument is as strong for the efficiency of traveling in a sleeper car pulled by a diesel locomotive over air travel, particularly mainline jet travel. I'm not convinced that jet travel is significantly better, either, just that they're probably in the same ballpark.

Yeah sorry about that, I missed some of what you were saying.

Long distance trains can actually become more efficient with how many cars are added - so the sleeper space and diner isn’t necessarily a problem.

While taking a train from nyc to LA might be worse per passenger mile than the flight... the flight only has the set number of passengers where trains will pick up and discharge many passengers between nyc and la - so the numbers get a bit iffy there.

The newer diesel locomotives are also much more efficient - so that helps.

But yes there would be a few routes where it gets tricky and ultimately we need more electric railways in this country - it’s a shame brightline isn’t building electric.

 

[Tlcooper44]

According to Amtrak's "Travel Green" website, they state that Amtrak is 34% more energy efficient than flying, and "up to 73% fewer emissions." The emissions claim is unsourced and has an up-to, while the 34% more energy efficient comes from the 2021 U.S. Department of Energy Data Book. That publication has a warning on both graphs that talk about it (the main one, not including power distribution losses, and the secondary one that includes power distribution losses):

"Great care should be taken when comparing modal energy intensity data among modes. Because of the inherent differences among the transportation modes in the nature of services, routes available, and many additional factors, it is not possible to obtain truly comparable national energy intensities among modes. These values are averages, and there is a great deal of variability even within a mode."

Given that rail isn't leaps and bounds more efficient than air on the sourced claim, I think it's reasonable to infer that there are instances where particular Amtrak trips in particular classes of service may be less efficient than particular air trips in particular classes of service - where the mode used on Amtrak is particularly energy-intensive (say, a sleeper compartment which uses diesel engines and is not terribly dense, and with current dining services also has to account for the diesel used by the dining car) and the mode used in the air is somewhat less energy-intensive than the average (maybe not domestic first, but domestic coach on a mainline jet on a longer flight is likely more energy-efficient than the average air mile, since the average also includes small turboprop planes, higher passenger-mile emissions for short hops, etc.)

It's important to note that I'm not saying that rail travel in general is less efficient than air travel in general (clearly rail travel is better on average,) and rail certainly has a clearer path to getting to low/zero emissions (electrifying the rail network moves emissions to the electric grid, which looks to be moving to zero-carbon by mid-century in many places.) With how the landscape looks today, though, I'm not sure the argument is as strong for the efficiency of traveling in a sleeper car pulled by a diesel locomotive over air travel, particularly mainline jet travel. I'm not convinced that jet travel is significantly better, either, just that they're probably in the same ballpark.

This is absolutely true.
In coach, I do believe rail travel is probably more efficient in cross country travel.
In sleeper class, taking into account everthing that needs to happen to make it work, I'm not sure if its more effiecient than a Jetblue flight across the country.

Again, givin that Amtrak is currently running 100 year old technology on the majority of its routes (not just locos but also with rolling stock), and new Boeings and Airbuses are actually pretty incredibly efficent, I think the jury is still out.

Until America gets serious about electrifying more of its rail routes, we are unequivocally handicapped. The Cato institute will continue its anti-train field day, and rail will continue to suck for all of us.

 

[Tlcooper44]

I’ve never seen airplanes full of business travelers. Certainly you’ll see business travelers on an airplane but there are many routes (Orlando, Vegas) where you’re likely to see all tourists.

Just as I defended the train when someone suggested only tourism, I think its even dubious to claim air routes like Orlando and Vegas are exclusively leisure. I would put good money on it always being split on every single flight.

People have work in all cities. Orlando and Vegas are certainly no exception. My dad worked 30 years as a bond guy at a Boston firm. He traveled to Vegas frequently because the nice hotels were great places to have buisness meet-ups. It became a fun thing for him, and he brought my mom a few times. When he wasnt tied up with work, they could do fun things.

 

[crescent-zephyr]

Just as I defended the train when someone suggested only tourism, I think its even dubious to claim air routes like Orlando and Vegas are exclusively leisure. I would put good money on it always being split on every single flight.

Well... depends on the airline and the time of flight. Certainly people travel to Orlando and Vegas for business, I know I have! But I’ve been on flights to both where the vast majority were certainly in tourist mode.

I’m trying to think if I’ve ever been on a flight that seemed as exclusively business as the Acela between Washington and NYP.