Why trains instead of planes for long distance?

[SarahZ]

(while many airplane crashes are 100% no survivors)

You'll be relieved to know this isn't true. 90% of those involved in plane crashes survive.

So, if you combine the odds of actually being involved in a plane crash with the odds of surviving that plane crash, there really is very little to be concerned about.

People get into their cars every day and think, "I'm on the ground, and I'm in control if something goes wrong, so it makes me feel better."

Your odds of dying in a car accident are 1 in 77.

Your odds of dying in a plane crash are 1 in 5,000,000.

This app can help those who are scared. I find it amusing, but not in a way that pokes fun at people with a genuine phobia. I just like the data. Hopefully, it will help some of those people: https://www.fearofflying.app/

 

[LookingGlassTie]

Riding a train gives you new perspectives on places you might have already visited by car or bus. Even your hometown/home area.

Also allows you to see people's backyards without trespassing...............

 

[SarahZ]

Riding a train gives you new perspectives on places you might have already visited by car or bus. Even your hometown/home area.

Also allows you to see people's backyards without trespassing...............

All of those are fun, especially peeking into backyards.

I like when people put seasonal decorations in their backyard so those on the train can enjoy them. When I had an apartment that faced the Amtrak/NS tracks, I always decorated the windows facing the tracks.

 

[Qapla]

Why don't you use data instead of pulling your claims out of thin air?

I did use data ... I used the data I located online using Google. Maybe it doesn't agree with the data you found - but,like they say : "Statistics - the only math that does lie"

I have no intention or desire of continuing to discuss the accident and/or death danger/rates between plane/train/cars - especially since that is not the subject of this thread.

for most people fear of flying isn't about rationality it's about lack of control and the inability to escape in a situation where you aren't in control.

not sure if I would say "most" -maybe - "many" ... for me it has nothing to do with "control" - it is "fear", plain and simple. I have a fear of heights and planes tend to fly high ... trains stay on the ground. Either way, the fear is irrational ... even so, I am still afraid of heights - if I was any taller I would have a problem standing up!

Nevertheless, even if heights had nothing to do with it ... I still prefer the relaxed pace of riding the train and the 24/7 travel sure beats driving - I find it much easier to sleep in a train than sitting in a car while someone else is driving.

A few other reasons for riding the trains:

• Don't have to stop to use the Restroom
• Don't have to navigate roads I am not familiar with on the way to my destination
• I just find it cool!

 

[Bluejet]

Less damage to the environment, by quite a margin

All of the above, plus I can take my cooler, bring liquids, use the cell phone and easily go online. All this contributes to what we call the comfort factor. The train is like a hotel on wheels, a relaxing way to travel, and far more friendly to the environment. Most people don't realize it but a six hour cross country airline trip will consume 20,000 gallons of aviation fuel for a passenger load of maybe 150-200 passengers. Talk about saving the environment, that's absolutely horrible pollution.

So I’m going to preface my response here that I am a frequent traveler by train and grew up in a household where I had family in the railroad buisness. Also, long time lurker, first time caller.

I’m an airline pilot for a major airline. And I believe the numbers here are a bit off. I believe on short trips, a train certainly is more efficient then an airliner, especially under catenary. That said, where airliners can win the efficiency game is on transcontinental flights. No narrowbody airliner since the 707, and likely not even that aircraft, will burn 20,000 gallons of jet a crossing the country. An Airbus 321-200 with sharklets and V2500 powerplants will burn roughly 35,000lbs on a trip from New York to Los Angeles. At 6.8lbs/ gallon, the Airbus will burn 5150 gallons carrying 159 people in a low density configuration with 16 or those seats in buisness class. The a321neos coming online burn 20% less fuel, so about 4100 gallons. By Amtrak’s reporting (and if I’m wrong here, apologies) long distance trains average .4m mpg, so considering a trip from NYC to Los Angeles the train will burn roughly 7000 gallons. Now, I do realize that the train has a bit more capacity, but likely significantly lower load factor, so there can’t really be a direct burn per hour total comparison, but my guess is the loads are likely similar. Our NYC to LAX flights run 12x daily and have 90+% load factors.

I’ll be the first to say that raw tonnage is obviously moved more efficiently via rail, but the problem is the tare weight is so high that there is a phenomenally higher tonnage that is being moved that doesn’t necessarily have to be. A full a321 with fuel weighs about 200,000lb, not significantly higher then a single super liner car.

In conclusion, I don’t know that long distance train travel is necessary a more “green” travel experience then a jet.

 

[user 14106]

In conclusion, I don’t know that long distance train travel is necessary a more “green” travel experience then a jet.

It very likely depends on time of year and how busy the train is. The new Charger locomotives when they enter service on these trains could alter the numbers as well.

 

[jiml]

There is nothing wrong with either method of travel, and combining both judiciously can be very practical. I have travelled a large percentage of the rail routes in North America and also have million-miler+ status with airlines. If not for one I might not be able to access the other. It all comes down to destination, time available and budget. (With the latest changes, one could also include food.)

 

[dande]

Do they ever update and/or replace sleeper cars? The ones we just had on the Silver Service both north and southbound were pretty worn

 

[Ryan]

I did use data ... I used the data I located online using Google. Maybe it doesn't agree with the data you found - but,like they say : "Statistics - the only math that does lie"

Perhaps you can share that data, so that we can understand why you perceive there to be a difference and ensure that we're comparing apples to apples.

I have no intention or desire of continuing to discuss the accident and/or death danger/rates between plane/train/cars- especially since that is not the subject of this thread.

Or not, if you're not actually interested in facts and reason. Relative safety is a reason for choosing one or the other, which is very much the topic of this thread.

 

[jloewen]

Let's not forget both are infinitely more safe than driving your own vehicle which all of us do routinely. But for most people fear of flying isn't about rationality its about lack of control and the inability to escape in a situation where you aren't in control. Rail being on the ground gives you at least a more perceived chance of being able to escape than being 30,000 feet in the air. Im not saying its rational, but its still a very real thing when you have it. And take this from someone who does have discomforts with flying. I know it isn't rational, I know statistically its safest, but for me its still the scariest.

For some routes, such as DC to CHI, DC to ATL, DC to N FL, and doubtless other routes in other parts of the country, it's efficient to take the train. I can leave DC at 6:30PM and be in, say, Savannah the next AM at 6:40AM (if on time), downtown, after a shower and after breakfast, ready to do stuff. The only way to do that by plane is fly in the night before, get in from the airport, and rent a hotel room.
And then you sit three abreast. Humankind was not MEANT to sit three abreast!

 

[Ryan]

If I'm going to ATL, I'm spending the night at home in my own bed and heading to the airport for a morning flight down. WN1298 gets me there before 9. If 0430 is too early for me to leave the house (I'm out the door at 0530 weekdays, so it isn't a hardship for me), then I defer to WN2399. A more gentlemanly 0800 departure still has me on the ground before 10. If I truly have to be there ready to go first thing in the AM, then I have a leisurely dinner at home, head to the airport and catch one of the evening flights down before a good night's sleep in a hotel.

Similar story for DC-CHI or to JAX (used to be a frequent work trip).

 

[I like rolling hotels]

All of the above, plus restaurant-grade food and being allowed to keep the Swiss army knife I carry all day every day.

 

[jis]

If I'm going to ATL, I'm spending the night at home in my own bed and heading to the airport for a morning flight down. WN1298 gets me there before 9. If 0430 is too early for me to leave the house (I'm out the door at 0530 weekdays, so it isn't a hardship for me), then I defer to WN2399. A more gentlemanly 0800 departure still has me on the ground before 10. If I truly have to be there ready to go first thing in the AM, then I have a leisurely dinner at home, head to the airport and catch one of the evening flights down before a good night's sleep in a hotel.

Similar story for DC-CHI or to JAX (used to be a frequent work trip).

I am with you Ryan. It is usually my preference to sleep in a bed firmly attached to terra firma rather than bouncing around on unpredictable quality American rail tracks. I do the latter only for leisurely enjoyment, which I like BTW, not when I have critical work to attend to next morning.

There is no really usable overnight service from DC to CHI where you can get in full day's work at either end. The situation between DC and JAX is considerably better, but still not ideal. SAV is better. I have occasionally done NWK/TRE to SAV or JAX for a business trip. But I had to either do it over a weekend or take a vacation day to make it happen. Not ideal at all.

 

[Ryan]

I had a flight cancellation that almost led me to take the train WAS-JAX once last year. The late afternoon departure up here was fine, but the 0640 arrival into JAX left me in the middle of nowhere without a rental car (none of the local places are open that early) and none of my traveling companions were going to be on site yet to help. Train station to the Naval Station is a bit too much of a haul to ask of one of the locals.

 

[Chey]

I also agree - I’m coming to the States from the UK in part just for the fun of riding the trains (Texas Eagle then Coast Starlight) I could easily have flown from Austin to Seattle in a day for sure but decided a trainride would be a good way for me as a solo traveller to see parts of the States I otherwise wouldn’t see and meet people I wouldn’t otherwise meet hopefully in a safe environment.

May your trip be a pleasure! Amtrak isn't perfect but it's the only way I want to travel.

 

[Chey]

Let's not forget both are infinitely more safe than driving your own vehicle which all of us do routinely. But for most people fear of flying isn't about rationality its about lack of control and the inability to escape in a situation where you aren't in control. Rail being on the ground gives you at least a more perceived chance of being able to escape than being 30,000 feet in the air. Im not saying its rational, but its still a very real thing when you have it. And take this from someone who does have discomforts with flying. I know it isn't rational, I know statistically its safest, but for me its still the scariest.

Yes. If I'm in a train wreck, I'm not likely to have seen it coming. If a plane fails, I'll know it all the way down. That's the worst nightmare ever for me.

 

[jis]

At the remarkable apparent rate at which freight trains seem to derail in the US, there seems to be very little to comfort oneself when a zillion freight trains pass by you two feet away from your window. Each mode has its moments.

 

[Trogdor]

Yes. If I'm in a train wreck, I'm not likely to have seen it coming. If a plane fails, I'll know it all the way down. That's the worst nightmare ever for me.

That’s another myth. By far, most incidents that occur at cruising altitude give the crew more than enough time to make it down safely. The ones that are most dangerous are the ones that happen close to the ground, simply because they don’t give the crew enough time to react.

Unless you’re referring to the (maybe) once-per-decade occurrence of an airplane blowing up in mid-air.

 

[Chey]

You'll be relieved to know this isn't true. 90% of those involved in plane crashes survive.

So, if you combine the odds of actually being involved in a plane crash with the odds of surviving that plane crash, there really is very little to be concerned about.

People get into their cars every day and think, "I'm on the ground, and I'm in control if something goes wrong, so it makes me feel better."

Your odds of dying in a car accident are 1 in 77.

Your odds of dying in a plane crash are 1 in 5,000,000.

This app can help those who are scared. I find it amusing, but not in a way that pokes fun at people with a genuine phobia. I just like the data. Hopefully, it will help some of those people: https://www.fearofflying.app/

I appreciate the app and what it attempts to do. Back in the 80's I spent a lot of time educating myself about the way planes work, why most of them stay aloft. It didn't help. I got hypnosis to try to deal with my fear, that didn't help either. That's when I realized it was a phobia that would never respond to reason or education.

I'm a military brat, I've flown all my life. But in my teens the fear kicked in and it grew to the point I just couldn't fly anymore. The last time I flew anywhere was 1997 , a short trip from Phoenix to Las Vegas for Comdex. The way back it took 4 valiums and 4 drinks just to get on the plane. In normal circumstances that would've been suicide. My adrenaline, my blood pressure were so high it took that much... and that's even riskier than what I fear about flying... and this was all before 9/11, before the TSA. BTW, My daughter flies a lot - she's big-chested and ALWAYS gets groped. If they tried that with me, I'd be in jail for a long time. That's on top of the phobia. I just don't want to deal with it. So I haven't flown in over 20 years and I still get to where I need to go. Lucky me, all the rest of my family lives near an Amtrak station.

I have loved trains since I was a little girl, though I never rode one until we were stationed in Europe. When I was a pre-kindergartner we always got out of the car and waved to the freight train we always had to stop for every Sunday. My father was a civil engineer, but when I was little I couldn't understand why, if he was an engineer, I couldn't ride his train. Always made me mad!

One day in 1993 I rode Amtrak for the first time - I was hooked.

If it means I can't see Europe, okay, I've seen a lot of it already. Maybe I will have the money someday to take an ocean liner there, I'd like to see Ireland again. And Switzerland. Places I loved.

It's not that I don't understand the dangers inherent in any other form of travel. I just don't have a phobia about any of them except flying. I don't know why, but that's how it is. I work around it.

 

[Maglev]

I like trains because they give an understanding of this great land that one cannot get from an airplane. I also love the ability to do this from the comfort of a private room, with decent quality food and beverages available nearby. When I do have to fly, I go first class, so the price differential for taking a sleeper on Amtrak is not that great.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I don’t know that long distance train travel is necessary a more “green” travel experience then a jet.

Being green is more than raw efficiency and load factors. A big part of the problem with commercial aircraft is that their exhaust is expelled at an altitude that substantially amplifies the impact relative to ground level exhaust. There may indeed be cases where the latest generation aircraft flying ideal mission profiles at extremely high load factors can compete favorably with an outdated diesel locomotive dragging ancient rolling stock through a circuitous rail route, but I don't think cherry-picked exceptions should drive our decision making. Even a lowly pickup truck can pull a Superliner rail car across typical rail grades, despite having little hope of dragging an A321n to FL400. You can buy conventional off-the-shelf passenger trains that can approach zero emissions when fueled with renewable energy today. There are no commercial scale zero emission passenger aircraft anywhere on the horizon.

 

[Winecliff Station]

1. Comfort- even in coach there is more room, plus the ability to walk without running into someone or a beverage cart, and getting out of your seat isn't a major hike.
2. Convenience- I live 15 minutes from an Amtrak station, but an hour from a small domestic airport and 2 hours from a major hub. Anything under a 10-12 hour train ride is almost as long if you fly, when you consider waiting time, security, connection layovers, and getting transportation from the airport which is never within the city. Even the longer distances, I love that I can board a train so close to my home and be in downtown New Orleans, Chicago or Miami the next day.
3. Enjoyment- I'm one of those nutty people that would rather sail across an ocean than fly over it. My hope for retirement is to just be a surface traveler all over the planet, using trains and ships only. This vacation I'm now finishing included a cruise with a long distance train ride on either end. No planes, so no tiny bottles or disrobing during security, and no stupid rules about what I can and can't take with me. It was pure bliss. The more ways they find to make air travel unpleasant, the less I want to take part in it. And there is more to see out the window

 

[jebr]

You can buy conventional off-the-shelf passenger trains that can approach zero emissions when fueled with renewable energy today. There are no commercial scale zero emission passenger aircraft anywhere on the horizon.

This, to me, is why the train wins on the environmental front. Sure, the electrical grid isn't emissions-free today, but there's a lot of effort being placed into doing so, and electrified rail lines can very easily take advantage of that work simply by electrifying rail lines. There's a cost to that, but the path is there and certainly doable with enough money. Commercial passenger airplanes simply don't have a simple conversion to electric that I've seen, especially for longer distances.

That said, I fly quite a bit more than I take the train. There are far too many markets where a two-hour flight is multiple days by train due to low speed, low frequency, and out-of-the-way routes. Since I do enjoy flying as well as taking the train, there isn't a strong hesitation against flying, and I simply don't have the time far too often to take the train. If I had the time and the money, I'd probably take the train; it's certainly more comfortable and there's security hassles that I have to work around when flying that simply aren't an issue when taking the train. (For example, I usually check a bag when flying because I use a safety razor, and the blades for it can't be brought on board. I also like bringing a few cans of beer or cider home with me, which again requires checking a bag if I want to do so.) But given the time constraints and the frustrating intercity rail network, I've found ways to work around the issues with flying and will typically do that on longer trips unless I have extra time and want to make the train trip part of the vacation.

 

[Winecliff Station]

I agree that the journey is the destination, but unlike most folks on this forum, that includes any thing that rolls, flies, or floats....
To paraphrase the Cunard Line old slogan...”Getting there is half the fun”, to which I add...Coming back, is the other half...

I love Cunard.... did the final crossing on QE2 in 2008 before she was sold to Dubai. I don’t even mind the formal nights!

 

[SarahZ]

It's not that I don't understand the dangers inherent in any other form of travel. I just don't have a phobia about any of them except flying. I don't know why, but that's how it is. I work around it.

I get it. Most of the people I know with a fear of flying link it to a fear of heights. It's not so much the risk of a plane crashing as the terrifying feeling of being 25,000 feet in the air. There's not much that can be done about that since all of the statistics in the world won't help a feeling of vertigo at high altitudes.

I'm claustrophobic, so if Amtrak traveled via an underground tunnel, you'd never see me on a train again.