Why do Amtrak trains have to be so slow?

[the_traveler]

Government ownership = socialism. Socialism = the first giant step on the road to communism.

Yes, many people think this way, and it's hard to tell them they're wrong.

I don't want to get political, but this is totally wrong!

Socialism and communism are totally unrelated. Many people do not know the difference. Most Americans think Communism and they think the former USSR. It was NEVER a Communist country.The name USSR stood for the United Soviet Socialist Republics!

 

[TVRM610]

Devils Advocate... You are not bursting my bubble. I look at the reality that Amtrak is adding routes, improving speeds, ordering new equipment, and setting ridership records every year.

 

[SarahZ]

And don't forget, young people get old! There will always be old people and young people (hopefully, anyway).

I think that's a statement on more of the "general" dynamics than anything else. The average sleeping car passenger is typically going to have more expendable cash than the average coach passenger, and the older generation tends to have more expendable cash than the younger generation. You can usually put it in terms of a sleeping car passenger is there for the journey whereas a coach passenger is there for the transportation. Not to say the reverse is never true, but in broad strokes its a decent assessment IMHO.

Ding ding ding. Spot on, my friends.

B and I traveled in Coach while visiting each other because he was unemployed and I was paying off my debt. Now that we live together, have no debt, and he is gainfully employed (double-income, no kids, woot woot!), we can hang out in the sleepers with the bourgeoisie.

That said, if sleepers are mid/high-bucket, we say, "Eff that noise," and hang out in Coach with the majority. ^_^

 

[AmtrakWPK]

Going by train is not necessarily that much slower than by air. If you mention "it's only a two hour flight", that would be fine except you didn't count the two or three hours you have to be in the terminal in advance of your flight, going through long lines of security (everything but a colonoscopy, which will eventually probably occur to Homeland Security). And then there are the parking fees. If your trip is a long one, your parking fees can exceed the price you paid for your tickets, includng the money you doled out for baggage, a larger seat, or whatever, or you used one of the more outlying parking companies that don't charge as much but take a lot longer to process you in and then you wait for a shuttle bus. If you figure all THAT time into the equation, your two hour flight is now six or seven or even eight hours (mostly of frustration before and after your sardine-can flight) unless you live close to the airport and your final destination is close to the airport.The travel byair has gone from being a bad trip to the dentist to the prep for a colonoscopy; A royal pain in the rump. Here, the WPK station is only 10-15 minutes from our house, has free parking, even for long trips, and you park you car only 50-75 feet from where you will get on the train. And no security hassles to speak of. And SOOOOO much more comfortable than anything but a privateSuite on an A-380.

 

[AmtrakWPK]

Baby boomers are not only creating the largest retirement wave we've ever seen, they're also going to be the last generation to retire with anything resembling a traditional pension or 100% of their Social Security payout. All signs are pointing to a unique one-off retirement bubble that is unlikely to be repeated for several generations to come, if ever. Generation X and Y are going to be working much later into life in return for much less purchasing power than those who came before us. Sorry to burst your bubble, but some things really do change from generation to generation.

But this is NOT the fault of the "baby boomers". The blame falls squarely on Congress. They set up a "Trust Fund" to receive the taxes which we working folks paid in every year. Then they started, and continued to raid that Trust Fund for whatever they wanted to, basically leaving IOUs. Now that money is no longer there and we're trillion$ in debt.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I don't want to get political, but...

Your random political diatribe doesn't seem to be based on anything in particular, doesn't bring any new information to the discussion, and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Amtrak.

B and I traveled in Coach while visiting each other because he was unemployed and I was paying off my debt. Now that we live together, have no debt, and he is gainfully employed (double-income, no kids, woot woot!), we can hang out in the sleepers with the bourgeoisie.

That's great news. Now consider for a moment how having zero debt is going to pay for your retirement. It's a harsh world out there and it's not getting any easier.

 

[SarahZ]

I'm not sure I understand you. By getting out of debt, we've ensured we can save for our retirement. All of the money that we used to get out of debt is now going into our 401Ks, mutual funds, CDs, and savings.

We "splurge" once or twice per year by purchasing a roomette. But, as I said, if the roomette is high-bucket, we travel in Coach.

I think we're doing okay and making smart decisions.

 

[AlanB]

But I doubt that the schedule will change much, if at all. Amtrak likes to be on time, even if it means upping the padding.

Yes, Amtrak likes to be on time. But they most certainly don't like adding padding. A dozen years or so ago when Amtrak agreed to add 10.5 hours of padding to the Full Sunset Limited, they didn't want to do that. They went to freight RR's to find out how to fix things and be more ontime. The RR's assured them that the answer was to give them more time to get the train over the road. So CSX got 2.5 hours and UP got 8 hours.

And both RR's promptly broke that agreement and the trains continued to run very late. Now in UP's defense, this was during their meltdown and their freight was just as badly delayed as Amtrak. But CSX really had no excuse, they just used the extra time to squeeze more of their own trains through.

 

[crescent2]

Sorcha, keep it up! My children are also actively trying to prepare for their future retirements, and I'm trying to hang on to as much of my nest egg as I reasonably can in hope of passing some of it on to help with their retirements. Except for public workers (such as teachers--thank goodness for the teacher retirement system, in my case), most defined benefit plans have gone away, and SS is on a path to future insolvency. However, as you have shown, future retirees are not totally helpless. Now is the time to start saving for your retirement years. I and many other of today's retirees started saving years ago.

Of course, if the entire US economy tanks, which is unfortunately not a completely insane thought, we're all sunk. I try to refrain from political statements on this forum, but we simply must get the national debt under control. It Is truly scary. As most probably do, I have my own list of where to start, but we'll not go there. For purposes of AU, Amtrak is not at the top of my list.

On another note: No one burst my bubble. I was simply making the point that "the older people" as a group don't disappear; younger ones grow old to take their place. Whether future retirees have disposable income depends upon many things (see above).

And while my political side is showing: I totally agree that government's "management"--or lack thereof, is to blame for the SS mess. I believe it was during Johnson's term that the SS fund was raided to spend in the general budget, something that corporations are, correctly, not allowed to do. And it's continued ever since. SS benefits are a debt the treasury owes, just like other debt, imho. They took our/your payments (and spent them on other things) and they owe us/you benefits. It's not the fault of the current and previous SS beneficiaries, so no guilt trip for me. SS is, and has been for a number of years, totally mismanaged by both political parties. *steps off soapbox*

 

[crescent2]

....and that's why Amtrak trains have to be so slow. LOL

We do wander OT here.

 

[SarahZ]

Yeah, we aren't counting on SS at all. Most of my generation is fully aware SS will probably be long gone by the time we retire.

 

[jebr]

Going by train is not necessarily that much slower than by air. If you mention "it's only a two hour flight", that would be fine except you didn't count the two or three hours you have to be in the terminal in advance of your flight, going through long lines of security (everything but a colonoscopy, which will eventually probably occur to Homeland Security). And then there are the parking fees. If your trip is a long one, your parking fees can exceed the price you paid for your tickets, includng the money you doled out for baggage, a larger seat, or whatever, or you used one of the more outlying parking companies that don't charge as much but take a lot longer to process you in and then you wait for a shuttle bus. If you figure all THAT time into the equation, your two hour flight is now six or seven or even eight hours (mostly of frustration before and after your sardine-can flight) unless you live close to the airport and your final destination is close to the airport.The travel byair has gone from being a bad trip to the dentist to the prep for a colonoscopy; A royal pain in the rump. Here, the WPK station is only 10-15 minutes from our house, has free parking, even for long trips, and you park you car only 50-75 feet from where you will get on the train. And no security hassles to speak of. And SOOOOO much more comfortable than anything but a privateSuite on an A-380.

To be fair, most places that are a two-hour direct flight would take close to a day to take the train to, if the train goes there at all. Even with all of the hubbub of security, parking, etc. for the train, longer distances still give airlines a huge time advantage.

As but one example, DEN to BOI takes 24 hours by train/bus, but only 2 hours by flight (one of the two legs for my flight to BOI later this year.) Assuming that this time constraint generally holds true (not unreasonable out west), I'd be looking at an extra hour to get to the parking for the airport vs. the train, an extra two hours to get to the airport and get through security (since Amtrak recommends a half-hour and the recommended time for the airport is two hours, plus transportation to the airport), and maybe an extra 15-30 minutes on the other end (the airport and the bus station in BOI are pretty close), and you're still looking at only 6 hours for a plane vs. 24.5 hours for the train.

(Granted, I'm replacing an MSP experience for getting to the airport, but the timing should still hold true. Timing-wise for travel I'm only using the DEN to BOI leg, as MSP to BOI is an even worse comparison, but also longer than a 2-hour plane ride.)

 

[DET63]

Government ownership = socialism. Socialism = the first giant step on the road to communism.

Yes, many people think this way, and it's hard to tell them they're wrong.

I don't want to get political, but this is totally wrong!

Socialism and communism are totally unrelated. Many people do not know the difference. Most Americans think Communism and they think the former USSR. It was NEVER a Communist country.The name USSR stood for the United Soviet Socialist Republics!

Communism vs. socialism: a distinction without much of a difference:

The Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Russian: Коммунистическая партия Советского Союза, Kommunisticheskaya partiya Sovetskogo Soyuza; short: КПСС, KPSS) was the only legal, ruling political party in the Soviet Union and one of the largest communist organizations in the world. It lost its dominance in the wake of the failure of the 1991 August putsch.

Wikipedia. (Make of it what you will.)

But I suppose this is really a topic for another day.

 

[Nathanael]

Sorcha, keep it up! My children are also actively trying to prepare for their future retirements, and I'm trying to hang on to as much of my nest egg as I reasonably can in hope of passing some of it on to help with their retirements. Except for public workers (such as teachers--thank goodness for the teacher retirement system, in my case), most defined benefit plans have gone away, and SS is on a path to future insolvency.

Social Security is completely solvent until, IIRC, 2100 or so.
That's assuming that the rest of the government pays its debts to Social Security...

I believe it was during Johnson's term that the SS fund was raided to spend in the general budget, something that corporations are, correctly, not allowed to do. And it's continued ever since. SS benefits are a debt the treasury owes, just like other debt, imho. They took our/your payments (and spent them on other things) and they owe us/you benefits.

This is correct. The Social Security surplus was used to hide the very large deficit in the "general fund" budget. That deficit is mostly caused by (1) military spending (roughly $500 billion dollars a year, roughly equal to the sum total of the rest of the word) and (2) tax cuts for rich investors, who now pay income tax at the lowest rates since 1933, and in some ways lower rates than in 1916 (first $30,000 in dividends & capital gains tax-free, 15% maximum rate after that).

Most people don't know these little facts; only people who actually look up the tax code details and look up the budget numbers know them. That's why politicians are able to talk nonsense about Social Security; they rely on people not knowing what the actual drivers of the budget deficit are.

The core problem here is not the "national debt"... the problem is general political failure, as we see with the Senate deciding that it's OK to pass no laws, confirm no appointees, and let any single Senator veto anything with "silent holds".

Anyway, that's one reason I'm glad Amtrak is generating more ticket revenue and getting more state support. The federal government is just getting *unreliable* in recent decades, thanks mostly to the Senate not doing its job. We may be running on continuing resolutions for years to come.

 

[Nathanael]

I'm also curious about the average age of the Amtrak passenger - it seems to me that I see just as many young people and families on the train as I do retirees.

A fellow named D.P. Lubic who posts on some other rail-related sites claims that the distribution is bimodal.
In short, people who grew up in roughly the 1950s - 1970s (the era of uncrowded expressways, no-security airplanes, and bankrupt railroads) don't take trains much, while people older and younger than that have a strong preference for trains.

 

[Ryan]

Anecdotally, I would buy that - it roughly mirrors the observation I've made about this forum (and other rail forums). At 33, I'm on the old end of the younger group, then there's a bit of a gap until you get up into the 50+ crowd.

Hopefully that bodes well for rail as the younger group continues to grow in size. The steady trend downward in vehicle miles travelled and increase in Amtrak ridership seem to bear that out.

 

[Dan O]

Yeah, we aren't counting on SS at all. Most of my generation is fully aware SS will probably be long gone by the time we retire.

You may not be counting on it but if you are working and paying into it you are covered for disability and survivor benefits if you have children.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

By getting out of debt, we've ensured we can save for our retirement. All of the money that we used to get out of debt is now going into our 401Ks, mutual funds, CDs, and savings. We "splurge" once or twice per year by purchasing a roomette. But, as I said, if the roomette is high-bucket, we travel in Coach. I think we're doing okay and making smart decisions...Yeah, we aren't counting on SS at all. Most of my generation is fully aware SS will probably be long gone by the time we retire.

Have you visited a frank talking financial adviser yet? I found that to be a rather eye-opening experience myself. I thought I was doing great. I've been debt free my entire life. I've also been saving between 10% and 20% of my income over the last decade. That's what everyone had suggested I needed to do. So what exactly did I have to show for it? Well, according to more than one financial adviser, I have now saved roughly 10% of what I would need to retire comfortably in Texas. How nice. Ten years of debt free savings got me 10% of the way there. Now if I can just keep saving for another eighty years I'll be all set. Yes I know about the "miracle" of compound interest. Unfortunately most of your investments will fall under three categories that are all susceptible to losses beyond your control. Those that will eventually lose money to inflation, those that will eventually become caught up in some sort of market bubble, and those that are fed into the wish-washy Wall Street casino that can chew up and spit out your retirement with little or no warning. Retiring comfortably and enjoyably in the post baby boomer era requires a lot more luck than most people seem to realize. So far as I can tell the only way I can pull it off is to retire somewhere else entirely. And, to be perfectly frank, that probably suits me just fine. Having seen what retirement looks like here in the states, even among small time millionaires, I'm not exactly looking forward to it anyhow.

To be fair, most places that are a two-hour direct flight would take close to a day to take the train to, if the train goes there at all. Even with all of the hubbub of security, parking, etc. for the train, longer distances still give airlines a huge time advantage.

You know it. I know it. Anyone who travels by air knows it. But try saying it here and it's like talking to a brick wall. Oh well such is life I suppose.

 

[jis]

To be fair, most places that are a two-hour direct flight would take close to a day to take the train to, if the train goes there at all. Even with all of the hubbub of security, parking, etc. for the train, longer distances still give airlines a huge time advantage.

You know it. I know it. Anyone who travels by air knows it. But try saying it here and it's like talking to a brick wall. Oh well such is life I suppose.

The general idea that the French had when they put their nationwide HSR plan together was that journey time of 3 hours is the target to shoot for irrespective of whatever speed.

This generally holds good I think, because as long as yous tay within that limit, with properly timed service you can do a day trip without involving hotels and such. As soonas you go beyond that threshold there is an associated total cost of the trip threshold that is crossed because of other ancillary expenses thats tart adding up.

Some examples from my plans in the near future....

1. I have to visit Florida for a family gathering over a weekend. There is no way I can take days off for it. If such a trip is affordable at all it is only possible by air. At least for people like me who has half the family in the New York area and the other half in Florida, this is not such an uncommon scenario.

2. I was looking into a trip to Utica from New York to ride the Adirondack Scenic Railraod, which has a single service departing Utica at 9:30am and returning at 7pm. The only reasonable way to do this is, as it turns out to drive there and back, an under 4 hour drive from my home, even if a nights hotel stay is added on before the Adirondack Scenic trip. Doing it by train involves two hotel nights and killing an extra day since there are no convenient late evening departures to get back home.

OTOH where there is good service in the 3 to 4 hour journey time range, even in spite of the somewhat steep Amtrak fares, it wins out over air or bus for my purposes.

This business about using trains for overnight business trips might work in some small niche markets provided rail sleeper fares can be kept competitive with hotel charges. But I don't believe there is a huge opportunity there anymore, at least in the environment that we have in the US at present. yes, the environment could change favoring such again. but we are not there at present.

 

[SarahZ]

By getting out of debt, we've ensured we can save for our retirement. All of the money that we used to get out of debt is now going into our 401Ks, mutual funds, CDs, and savings. We "splurge" once or twice per year by purchasing a roomette. But, as I said, if the roomette is high-bucket, we travel in Coach. I think we're doing okay and making smart decisions...Yeah, we aren't counting on SS at all. Most of my generation is fully aware SS will probably be long gone by the time we retire.

Have you visited a frank talking financial adviser yet? I found that to be a rather eye-opening experience myself. I thought I was doing great. I've been debt free my entire life. I've also been saving between 10% and 20% of my income over the last decade. That's what everyone had suggested I needed to do. So what exactly did I have to show for it? Well, according to more than one financial adviser, I have now saved roughly 10% of what I would need to retire comfortably in Texas. How nice. Ten years of debt free savings got me 10% of the way there. Now if I can just keep saving for another eighty years I'll be all set. Yes I know about the "miracle" of compound interest. Unfortunately most of your investments will fall under three categories that are all susceptible to losses beyond your control. Those that will eventually lose money to inflation, those that will eventually become caught up in some sort of market bubble, and those that are fed into the wish-washy Wall Street casino that can chew up and spit out your retirement with little or no warning. Retiring comfortably and enjoyably in the post baby boomer era requires a lot more luck than most people seem to realize. So far as I can tell the only way I can pull it off is to retire somewhere else entirely. And, to be perfectly frank, that probably suits me just fine. Having seen what retirement looks like here in the states, even among small time millionaires, I'm not exactly looking forward to it anyhow.

I do worry about this, but short of stuffing money into a mattress ( ), what are my other options? A giant safe behind a painting? Ooohhh... that could be cool.

 

[jebr]

To be fair, most places that are a two-hour direct flight would take close to a day to take the train to, if the train goes there at all. Even with all of the hubbub of security, parking, etc. for the train, longer distances still give airlines a huge time advantage.

You know it. I know it. Anyone who travels by air knows it. But try saying it here and it's like talking to a brick wall. Oh well such is life I suppose.

The general idea that the French had when they put their nationwide HSR plan together was that journey time of 3 hours is the target to shoot for irrespective of whatever speed.

This generally holds good I think, because as long as yous tay within that limit, with properly timed service you can do a day trip without involving hotels and such. As soonas you go beyond that threshold there is an associated total cost of the trip threshold that is crossed because of other ancillary expenses thats tart adding up.

[...]

This business about using trains for overnight business trips might work in some small niche markets provided rail sleeper fares can be kept competitive with hotel charges. But I don't believe there is a huge opportunity there anymore, at least in the environment that we have in the US at present. yes, the environment could change favoring such again. but we are not there at present.

The problem with "shooting" for 3-4 hour time slots is that you're looking, basically, at having regional transportation. Unless some technology comes out that does magic, there won't be any way to create a nationwide network where we can get from almost any location to almost any other location in 3-4 hours.

France is a bit smaller than Texas, which is just one of 50 states. Overall, France is only about 7% of the size of the United States. While Amtrak should work to create strong regional networks, we also need to recognize that even the Chicago to New York market won't have a 3-4 hour time period. Put that in a 10-hour time slot, downtown to downtown, and an overnight train could work wonders (assuming it's priced around the cost of a hotel + coach airfare.)

Do we need a stronger regional network? Yes. But quite a few of those are already being studied and are on the docket, and it's in regional service. Anything longer than 400 or so miles (unless you're running non-stop, that's about as feasible as you can get for a 3-4 hour time period with today's technology) will either need to fall in the "overnight" territory, will need to serve intermediate markets well without caring about endpoint business beyond that 3-4 hour (or 10ish hour for sleepers, but it'd have to hone in on that 10 hour mark pretty reliably - eight hours may be the shortest you could go and still attract a range of business customers) mark, or serve markets that airlines just can't cover.

Frankly, I'd like to seed rail as an integral part of a "spoke and hub" model for transportation. Road infrastructure (with buses) for short distances (under 200 miles when capacity walls aren't being reached,) trains for mid-range (200-400 mile or where capacity is an issue,) and airlines for longer-range. No more of these small airports with subsidies - bus or train routes should be subsidized instead. They offer more options for more people.

But rail cannot serve extremely long distances (over 400 miles, assuming you can do that in 4-6 hours) well in terms of speed, especially when competing against the airplane. That's not what it was made for.

 

[George Harris]

Most passengers do not ride end to end. The question is not whether the train runs more than 3 hours end to end, but if it strings together enough places that are 3 hours or closer in time to each other that you get numerous overlapping rides, and there are plenty of people out there that will take trips of over 3 hours by train.

 

[eric]

Just to chime in... It takes 13 hours to take the train from Cleveland to DC...and roughly 6 hours to drive. 13 hours for 372 miles...28 MPH average... There may be a myriad of reasons WHY, but it's still ridiculously slow.

 

[afigg]

Just to chime in... It takes 13 hours to take the train from Cleveland to DC...and roughly 6 hours to drive. 13 hours for 372 miles...28 MPH average... There may be a myriad of reasons WHY, but it's still ridiculously slow.

While the WAS to CLE route is slow, it is not quite 13 hours slow. The current Capitol Limited schedule is 10 hours 48 minutes WAS to CLE and 11 hours 16 minutes CLE to WAS.

 

[dlagrua]

Why do Amtrak trains have to be so slow?

Ans: Because the American people want it this way. In the 1950's and 1960's Americans abandoned the rails big time. This caused all the great railroads to close or go out of the passenger business. Government had to step in, otherwise we would have nothing.

Today passenger rail has made somewhat of a comeback and presently 37 million people utilize it. That's still only 10% of airlines passengers. Now if Amtrak was able to get even a 30% of the transportation passenger business, you would see positive changes. It probably won't happen until we get high speed rail but don't hold your breath.