Why trains instead of planes for long distance?

[Trollopian]

"Trips around 400 miles or one hour time in the air is basically the break-even point."

That's true even for me on one of Amtrak's pokiest routes. My DC office is 4 blocks from Washington's Union Station, my little Pittsburgh apartment (I split my time between the two cities) at the iconic Pennsylvanian, the former western HQ of the Pennsylvania RR and just atop Pittsburgh's shameful little Amshack.

Scenario #1: leave office at 3:20, arrive Union Station 10 minutes later, pick up a sandwich and mini-split of wine to enjoy later on the train, join the queue for the Capitol Limited, chug out of the station at 4:05. Enjoy a slow but scenic trip as long as daylight lasts. Arrive Pittsburgh at 11:48 if C.L. is on schedule (it's often early), be in my apartment 5 minutes later. One travel segment. Gorgeous scenery.

Scenario #2: leave office at 3:20, take two subway lines (always nerve-wracking) to DCA, arrive with luck by 4:00, budget a half-hour to clear security, take off at 5, land about 6:15, take the PAT 28X Airport Flyer bus (one of Pittsburgh's great bargains!) at 6:40, arrive downtown 1 hour later, walk 3 blocks. Four travel segments (=4 chances for something to go wrong). Mostly ugly scenery. Time savings four hours.

I bet this list would choose the train, too.

 

[Qapla]

Yes, for each of us things can be different.

I can be at a train depot in 45 minutes (35 in light traffic) and park next to the station ... it takes at least 1½-2 hours for me to get to JIA and I can't park anywhere close to the terminal.

That's why we tend to "prefer" one method over another for what can amount to "intangible reasons".


If there was still a train that went to the depot near me - I could be at one in 5 minutes and park next to the building ... but, Alas!, Amtrak no longer services that depot.

 

[crescent-zephyr]

By normal legal definition of "profitable" (stuff that they must report to Wall Street or be sent off to luxury jails ) they are indeed quite profitable these days. Of course if you cook up your own other definition then all bets are off.

Not debatable. Amtrak provides revenue figures as do the airlines. Profits are way up even after taking into account the 737 Max issues for the airlines which are affected. Also the number of airline passengers are disclosed as are the number of Amtrak passengers. Airlines have way more routes available and much greater passenger counts. Airlines have replaced long haul rail for most people but there are still a group of people willing to use long haul trains. Don’t get me wrong, I like competition but I don’t like government subsidies. If Amtrak can get long haul routes revenues enough to cover expenses then it should just keep doing that but it needs to get to that point.

Have.. if thirdrail can change the definition of "hourly pay" I think I can change the definition "profitable" .
You are correct.. as businesses they are indeed profitable. That I can't debate. The debate is, how many expenses does someone else foot the bill for to make them profitable. TSA, Airport construction and maintenance, Air Traffic Control, not to mention how much of that profit are they making off of subsidized flights.

It's kind of like when people say the passenger railroads in Europe make money. Again, technically the passenger railroad companies do run at a profit.

 

[jloewen]

Trips around 400 miles or one hour time in the air is basically the break-even point. Case in point: my company used to fly us in coach between Toronto and Montreal, but would pay business class on VIA Rail and CN before them. The two routings take basically the same time. You are supposed to be at the airport at least 90 minutes before your flight (yes, I know plenty of people will claim this is unnecessary, but it is an enforceable requirement), the flight takes just over an hour - more if de-icing and extended taxiing are required at either end, and the airports are both at least 30 minutes from downtown. Taking the train was a 5-minute walk from my office in Toronto and a 5-minute cab ride from our building in Montreal. Unless you lived near either airport the train was the popular choice.

There are several examples of exactly the same situation in the US, including a few outside the NEC.

In addition, I consider the time I'm asleep, or eating breakfast, showering, etc., to be "multitasking" on Amtrak, because we're also moving. Therefore, I calculate like this, from my home in DC to, say, Chicago:
by rail, leave home at 3:05PM, walk to Metro by 3:20PM, arr. Union Station by 3:40 PM, board train 3:45PM, depart 4:05PM, arrive Chicago downtown c.8:40AM after breakfast and after a shower.
by air: leave home 6PM, walk to Metro by 6:15PM, arr. DCA by 7:15 PM, board plane 8:15PM (I have TSA Global Entry, which speeds security a bit.) depart 8:40PM, arrive Chicago c.9:40PM, get to CSA subway 9:50PM, get to Loop c.10:25PM, walk to hotel by 10:35PM, go to sleep, and in the morning, after breakfast and after a shower, it'll be about 8:40AM.
Points of stress by flying include: will I make the flight (I don't build in much cushion.)? Sitting three abreast. Some chance of catching a cold or cough (happened on my last flight, actually), dealing with CTA, booking a hotel (ahead of time).
Points of fun by rail include: seeing the Potomac, especially in winter, and imagine how I might canoe it, given the water level; seeing beautiful Harpers Ferry, seeing "prehistoric" railroad ruins at the next station stop, enjoying the scenery until dark, working in my cabin, bringing my wife along almost for free if she wants to come, walking the length of the train just for the heck of it, maybe meeting other passengers and having interesting conversations, etc.
So, yes, I have to leave home three hours earlier, but much of those hours are scenic (Harpers Ferry etc.), so it's worth it to me!

 

[Chessie]

"Trips around 400 miles or one hour time in the air is basically the break-even point."

That's true even for me on one of Amtrak's pokiest routes. My DC office is 4 blocks from Washington's Union Station, my little Pittsburgh apartment (I split my time between the two cities) at the iconic Pennsylvanian, the former western HQ of the Pennsylvania RR and just atop Pittsburgh's shameful little Amshack.

Scenario #1: leave office at 3:20, arrive Union Station 10 minutes later, pick up a sandwich and mini-split of wine to enjoy later on the train, join the queue for the Capitol Limited, chug out of the station at 4:05. Enjoy a slow but scenic trip as long as daylight lasts. Arrive Pittsburgh at 11:48 if C.L. is on schedule (it's often early), be in my apartment 5 minutes later. One travel segment. Gorgeous scenery.

Scenario #2: leave office at 3:20, take two subway lines (always nerve-wracking) to DCA, arrive with luck by 4:00, budget a half-hour to clear security, take off at 5, land about 6:15, take the PAT 28X Airport Flyer bus (one of Pittsburgh's great bargains!) at 6:40, arrive downtown 1 hour later, walk 3 blocks. Four travel segments (=4 chances for something to go wrong). Mostly ugly scenery. Time savings four hours.

I bet this list would choose the train, too.

Grew up in Pittsburgh in the late 90’s and always wanted to see the inside of the Pennsylvanian. I thought it looked like a castle.

 

[oregon pioneer]

If there was still a train that went to the depot near me - I could be at one in 5 minutes and park next to the building ... but, Alas!, Amtrak no longer services that depot.

Ha, the closest train to me used to be the Pioneer -- only two hours! Now it's three hours to the AmBus (for the Coast Starlight) in Bend, four hours to WIH or PSC (Empire Builder), or five hours to WIN (California Zephyr. Slightly less than three hours to the airport at RDM, and four hours to BOI, so pick your poison. The only local connection goes to RDM (airport) or BND (AmBus to Chemult). If you live in the middle of nowhere, you choose your transportation options by what you really WANT to do, not what's most convenient.

 

[Metra Electric Rider]

If there was still a train that went to the depot near me - I could be at one in 5 minutes and park next to the building ... but, Alas!, Amtrak no longer services that depot.

Of course, if your local station had service, there might be no parking adjacent to the building because it would be too busy.

 

[pennyk]

I live between 2 stations (ORL and WPK) and have walked to both, although my walk to WPK was without luggage. When departing, I normally get a ride, take a bus or walk to a SunRail station and take SunRail to the Orlando Station. When returning home, if train 97 is on time, I usually detrain in WPK, take SunRail 2 stops and walk about .6 miles home. If SunRail is not running, I will either get a ride or take a bus. Amtrak is extremely convenient for me. (I am so close to the tracks that I can see my condo building from the train and can hear the horns).

The Orlando airport is a longer ride and impossible walk for me.

 

[Qapla]

Of course, if your local station had service, there might be no parking adjacent to the building because it would be too busy.

Since the depot building is only about 20' X 40' and the parking lot is dirt - I doubt it would be all that busy ... although, it wasn't closed due to lack of business - it was closed after they rerouted the train off these tracks.

 

[MARC Rider]

Penn Station Baltimore is a 15-20 minute drive from my house, depending on traffic. BWI airport is about a 35 minute drive in normal traffic, but if I'm parking and not being dropped off, I'd have to add at least another 15 minutes to park at the long-term lot and ride the shuttle to the terminal. Penn Station has a parking garage (expensive) on site and a parking lot across the tracks on Lanvale St.

Of course, if I lived in Linthicum, BWI airport would be much closer to home than Penn Station, but I don't live in Linthicum.

 

[jebr]

Here in St. Paul, Union Depot is a bit easier to get to (20 minute train ride vs. either 45 minute bus + train or 1 hour train + train.) However, both still require transit to get there (or parking on-site, but I don't want to pay for that,) and the transfer is easy enough that it's not a deciding factor for me (the trains and buses that I use all run every 10-15 minutes throughout the day.)

The biggest problem for me is that there's only one train a day, and the train is so often late (especially eastbound) that I have to play guesswork as to when it'll arrive. I'm not a huge fan of waking up at 6 AM just to find out that the train lost 4 hours overnight, so my train won't be leaving until noon. There's also been times where alternate transportation was offered over the phone, but when I arrive I find out that no alternate transportation is available for my trip.

The train is wonderful when I have the time to take it. But with limited PTO, a modest budget (modest enough that sleepers aren't worthwhile unless I have points, and a hotel night in Chicago to guarantee connections is also undesirable both time and cost-wise,) and only one train a day, the train often isn't a viable option. It works well enough for flexible short-distance trips, where I'm not too concerned about lateness or simply rescheduling for another day. But in terms of long-distance travel, I'd probably only consider it truly competing for me against flying for Chicago and possibly out to North Dakota or Montana. I used to consider it worthwhile enough to the east coast when I had the points, but with the delays and missed connection issues that's far less desirable for me than flying.

 

[Qapla]

The weather this week is another reason to take the train.

There are massive road closures and backups with some devastating wrecks. There are hundreds of delayed and cancelled flights.

So far, the trains are still running.

 

[chakk]

Well that’s good to know... so I am a little less likely to have cancer from those machines!

The larger cancer risk has always been all of that gamma ray exposure while flying at 35,000 feet.

 

[neroden]

http://media.amtrak.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Security_Fact_Sheet_5-5-16.pdf
Dated 2016
RANDOM PASSENGER AND BAGGAGE SCREENING
With due respect to passengers' privacy, the random and unannounced screening and inspection of passengers and
their personal items is completed as quickly as possible - usually in less than a minute. Passengers failing to consent
to security procedures will be denied access to trains and refused carriage, and a refund will be offered.

Same as ID, I've never been asked to have my bags searched. But that doesn't mean it won't happen sometime.

FYI, this terms-of-service provision is why when I got "randomly" harassed by the DEA (it wasn't random, it was because I'd bought a really-weird-looking ticket on very short notice... I was railfanning a detour route) -- I told the DEA agent that I did not consent to *him* searching my bags, but I would be fine with *Amtrak Police* searching my bags. I agreed to Amtrak searching my bags when I bought a ticket, but I never agreed to let the DEA do anything and I had no way of verifying that he was really a DEA agent. The DEA guy had an Amtrak policeman with him (as he should have), so it worked out.

When I told them the train was going on a detour route, the DEA guy said "I did not know that", and the Amtrak policeman suddenly had this "he's a railfan, we are not going to find anything" look.

 

[neroden]

Actually, that's not true, we had a perfectly good network of paved highways across the country in 1950 before the Interstate system was dreamed up. In fact, one could argue that the building of the interstate Highway System was one of the most foolish allocation of resources in history as it enabled suburban sprawl and led directly to our current environmentally unsustainable lifestyle that's going to lead to an environmental apocalypse once developing countries like China and India emulate our lifestyle. Which they seem to be on track to doing.

.... having researched the history, I found out that it was deliberate government policy during the 1950s to disperse the population across the countryside. That is, suburban sprawl was specifically promoted, regardless of whether people wanted it or not. A propaganda campaign was set up to promote it, and laws were changed to outlaw the construction of urban, dense development!

Why? Because of the nuclear bomb. It was believed by the idiots-in-charge in the 1950s that a nuclear attack would destroy all the cities but would not destroy the countryside. This is, of course, totally incorrect, because the idiots-in-charge were not paying attention to radioactive fallout, which is now considered the primary danger of nuclear bombs. Right now, nobody really gives a damn whether they blow up big, it's the fallout we worry about. The fallout would destroy the suburbs just as much as the cities. But the people in charge in the 1950s were super dumb and were not listening to the biologists; they imagined that these were just very large bombs. They had no excuse, since the Radium Girls cases were front page news in the 1930s. This insane attitude didn't change until substantial amounts of radioactive toxins were found in baby teeth and JFK and Krushchev were alerted in the 1960s, at which point the Partial Test Ban Treaty was passed.

And *not coincidentally*, that's right around when the aggressive government support for suburban sprawl starts to go away and there's some attempt to reinvest in cities.

I've wondered why everyone in power was insane in the 1950s, and my current hypothesis is that there was a culture of constant alcohol drinking combined with taking (doctor-prescribed) amphetamines and barbituates and other drugs, nearly all of which were *legal* at the time. While I don't approve of the War on Drugs, having many top government officials high while on the job was probably a bad idea; people should be sober on the job.

Of course, the racism leading to the "white-only suburbs" was another phenomenon promoting suburban sprawl, one which persisted much longer than the everyone-in-power-is-insane 1950s. It led to zoning codes which were designed to exclude poor people, including the infamous "single family" districts which cover suburbia, as well as the more explicit attempts to exclude black people (which were declared unconstitutional more often than the attempts to exclude poor people).

So there's some really big-picture background. If not for the nutters running the government in the 1950s, we probably would have had a lot more streetcar suburbs, which seem to be eternally popular. And if not for racism, we probably would have had a lot more high-density and medium-density development, which would support train service better.

 

[MARC Rider]

.... having researched the history, I found out that it was deliberate government policy during the 1950s to disperse the population across the countryside. That is, suburban sprawl was specifically promoted, regardless of whether people wanted it or not. A propaganda campaign was set up to promote it, and laws were changed to outlaw the construction of urban, dense development!

Why? Because of the nuclear bomb. It was believed by the idiots-in-charge in the 1950s that a nuclear attack would destroy all the cities but would not destroy the countryside.

You'll have to reference the source to have me believe that. The best popular history of suburban sprawl that I've read comes from the books of James Howard Kunstler. (The Geography of Nowhere, Home from Nowhere) He seems to have researched the history of this pretty thoroughly, and nowhere does he say anything about nuclear bombs. In fact the drivers of this go all the way back into the first half of the 19th century, when mechanized transport (trains, steamboats) made it possible for (wealthy) people to live at some distance from where they worked.

Kunstler's theory is that this is driven by what you might call cultural mythos -- the idea that Americans have some deep psychological need to believe that they are either "lords of the manor" or "brave pioneers settling the wilderness," and thus want to live a simulacrum of the the lifestyle involved. You obviously can't do that in an inner city tenement (or even a fancy apartment) in a walkable neighborhood. That fact that the physical condition of cities got shabby because of the Depression didn't help either. Once everybody got enough money to buy cars after World War 2, there was really no way to stop such an irresistible cultural and psychological force, especially when abetted by powerful commercial interests that stood to make a lot of money from said force. No conspiracy theories about atomic bombs and drunk drugged out political leaders are needed.

Right now, nobody really gives a damn whether they blow up big, it's the fallout we worry about. The fallout would destroy the suburbs just as much as the cities. But the people in charge in the 1950s were super dumb and were not listening to the biologists; they imagined that these were just very large bombs. . . . This insane attitude didn't change until substantial amounts of radioactive toxins were found in baby teeth and JFK and Krushchev were alerted in the 1960s, at which point the Partial Test Ban Treaty was passed.

As someone who endured what we called "retention drills" at my elementary school in the early 1960s (before the Test Ban Treaty was signed), I can assure you that even us 2nd graders knew about fallout. The word around was that if the bomb hit us, we were toast, even going to the cellar wouldn't help. The point of our assembling in the inner hallways of the school, which is what the "retention drill" was, was to protect us from the fallout, in the more likely event that the actual bombs would be falling on strategic targets in the area, not our residential suburb a good distance away.

I remember that they told us that the radiation would subside in about a week or so, and I think schools and other shelter areas were equipped with enough survival supplies to last for that period. I actually think that rural areas would be much less affected by a nuclear attack, at least in terms of initial catastrophic casualties. The areas might have increased rates of cancer many years later from the radiation that drifted over, a la Chernobyl, but not mass deaths at the time of the attack a la Hiroshima. But I never remember hearing about any deliberate policies to disperse the population, though, of course, it's possible that some pundit or policy wonk did raise the issue.

And *not coincidentally*, that's right around when the aggressive government support for suburban sprawl starts to go away and there's some attempt to reinvest in cities.

Maybe it's more the fact that the Democrats won the presidential election in 1960 and held the presidency for the next 8 years. The Democrats, had most of their support from the cities. And even after 1968, when another Republican was elected president, the Democrats remained in control of Congress.

I've wondered why everyone in power was insane in the 1950s, and my current hypothesis is that there was a culture of constant alcohol drinking combined with taking (doctor-prescribed) amphetamines and barbituates and other drugs, nearly all of which were *legal* at the time. While I don't approve of the War on Drugs, having many top government officials high while on the job was probably a bad idea; people should be sober on the job.

That's ridiculous, "everybody in power" in the 1950's was not insane and you had better have some very good evidence that they were drunk on the job. If they were insane, we would have had World War 3 and we wouldn't be here today posting these messages on an internet discussion group. The political leadership back then handled their differences much better than is being done by the people in power today and they were able to make a lot of rational policy that has stood the test of time, even if they screwed up about suburban sprawl. If those leaders back then really were drunk and on drugs, I would respond like Lincoln did when people were complaining that General Grant drank too much. Lincoln apparently said, "Find out what brand he drinks and send a barrel of it to all my other generals."

The origins of the suburban sprawl problem, indeed of our civilization's irrational imperative for over-consumption can not be blamed on a few simplistic bogeymen. It's based on our deep psychological needs, aided and abetted, of course, by those who stand to get rich meeting those needs. It's going to be very hard to reverse course until things get so bad that they fall apart and maybe something better can be built from the ruins.

 

[Qapla]

Some of the reason for the "sprawl" often depends on who is telling the story.

I recently saw a program about some of the businessmen that "built America". Some of them were rail tycoons - but a few of them were auto tycoons and they launched a very progressive advertising campaign to encourage people to move to the suburbs so they would buy more cars. The oil people went along with this because more cars on the road meant more oil sales. The steel giants and the timber industry also encouraged the sprawl because they also sold more goods - and none of the powerful businessmen were drunk, on drugs or insane ... they were cunning, devious and greedy.

If someone with a military background was telling the story - they may attribute the sprawl to weapons and fear ... someone with a utility background might attribute the sprawl to "cheap electricity" .... it all depends on who is telling the story.

Those of us who lived through these times have a different view from those who have read about it.

 

[crescent-zephyr]

The time argument is always interesting to me. Chicago to LA for example “why take a 2 day train trip when you can be there in a few hours!”

Chicago to LA is going to take up a full day of your time if you choose to fly, unless you take an overnight. It’s not some magical teleportation service.

Likewise, rail travelers who don’t fly usually act like flying is this crazy hassle which it really isn’t. The TSA is what it is. Just like the grumpy Amtrak crews, you play the game and get where you are going.

The difference is, our country has invested heavily in passenger air infrustructure. It would be great if we had better and more frequent rail service to both compliment and compete with air service.

 

[ehbowen]

I don't have the book at hand right now, but if you've read some of Heinlein's essays in Expanded Universe (IIRC) you'll find that there was serious political discussion at that time (early 1950s) of the need to "disperse" cities to increase survivability following a postulated nuclear attack. The congresscritters who were most strongly behind it pointed to Los Angeles (as it existed at that time) as the Model City. RAH was most skeptical of that initiative, favoring the creation of a true World State. Of course if that World State had ever become as dysfunctional as our current Federal Government has become...that's a pretty bleak future for the entire human race.

 

[neroden]

There were a few non-insane people in power in the 1950s, but they were trying to rein in people like Curtis LeMay. Um.

And it is unfortunately crystal clear that they were not considering fallout seriously during the 1940s and 1950s. The declassified documents are insanely clear about just not paying attention to it. They were hideously irresponsible about worker safety, too.

 

[neroden]

but a few of them were auto tycoons and they launched a very progressive advertising campaign to encourage people to move to the suburbs so they would buy more cars. The oil people went along with this because more cars on the road meant more oil sales. The steel giants and the timber industry also encouraged the sprawl because they also sold more goods

That is all true. That story, however, dates back to the 1920s. The federal government added its backing, for military reasons, in the 1950s.

 

[neroden]

you had better have some very good evidence that they were drunk on the job.

Three-martini lunches. Drinking at lunch was standard and acceptable.

Doctors prescribing amphetamines and barbituates routinely. This was "better living through chemistry", and it's actually extremely well documented if you care to look at it. My father remembers it well.

Nobody thought it was a *problem* during the 1950s. Someone who could "hold his liquor" was admired, and if your doctor prescribed pep pills and they gave you more energy, that was great. The Air Force was actually deliberately giving pilots amphetamines.

The fact that nobody worried about the possible damage to critical thinking -- that was the problem. Heavy drinking and heavy use of prescription drugs was absolutely normalized in the 1950s. My dad remembers it well. (He misses the barbituates. Said they were great.)

 

[MARC Rider]

That is all true. That story, however, dates back to the 1920s. The federal government added its backing, for military reasons, in the 1950s.

Whatever military backing for the Interstate Highway system comes from President Eisenhower, who participated in the US Army Transcontinental truck convoy in 1919 and saw firsthand how lousy American roads were outside of parts of the East Coast and California. Then, when he invaded Germany, he was impressed how well the German autobahns help his army move across the country.

I think the military rationale for the interstates at the time was to allow the army to more easily move troops and materiel around in the event of an invasion. Of course, they would also help the invading army move their troops and materiel. You still sometimes see military convoys driving the interstates, though, I think it's less often than it was a couple of decades ago.

 

[Skyline]

Grew up in Pittsburgh in the late 90’s and always wanted to see the inside of the Pennsylvanian. I thought it looked like a castle.

I had a friend who moved into the Pennsylvanian after it first opened. His unit was basic and cramped. Not bad, and one of the first older downtown buildings repurposed for residential. That it was historic was a plus, I think. Fast forward to . . . now . . . buildings all over downtown plus the nearby North and South Sides are becoming residential or mixed residential. The Pennsylvanian was ahead of its time in its reincarnation!

 

[Bob Dylan]

I had a friend who moved into the Pennsylvanian after it first opened. His unit was basic and cramped. Not bad, and one of the first older downtown buildings repurposed for residential. That it was historic was a plus, I think. Fast forward to . . . now . . . buildings all over downtown plus the nearby North and South Sides are becoming residential or mixed residential. The Pennsylvanian was ahead of its time in its reincarnation!

It was much better when it was a Train Station!