New York to Boston

[Sealink]

I apologise if this has been raised before, but I was wondering if there are noticable differences between

Acela Express and Amtrak Regional on the route above.

Journey time isn't a real consideration, as I will be on holiday, and I love looking at the stations that the train stops at.

Acela looks very sleek, and with the USD >> GBP exchange rate, I can get a decent price for a First Class ticket, and an even better price for Business.

But will Regional give me more of a taste of the 'real' Amtrak, and if so, will I want to taste that?

I've also noticed that Regional with a Business Seat is more expensive than the all-business Acela services, by just a few dollars admittedly, but is seems strange.

 

[jackal]

I apologise if this has been raised before, but I was wondering if there are noticable differences betweenAcela Express and Amtrak Regional on the route above.

Journey time isn't a real consideration, as I will be on holiday, and I love looking at the stations that the train stops at.

Acela looks very sleek, and with the USD >> GBP exchange rate, I can get a decent price for a First Class ticket, and an even better price for Business.

But will Regional give me more of a taste of the 'real' Amtrak, and if so, will I want to taste that?

I've also noticed that Regional with a Business Seat is more expensive than the all-business Acela services, by just a few dollars admittedly, but is seems strange.

Well, business ≠ business...on the Northeast Corridor, anyway.

Regional business gets you a few extra perks, like free beverage(s?) and maybe snacks and newspapers, whereas business on Acela gets you diddly-squat except a seat. Business class cars on Regional vary, too--sometimes they're ones with nice 2x1 faux leather seats and sometimes they're nothing more than regular coach cars with a "Business Class" sign taped over the word "Coach." (So, sometimes it's much nicer than Acela business and sometimes it's much worse.) But that's typical Amtrak, I guess.

A friend of mine describes Acela as "Star Trek," and I'd agree. They're nice, modern coaches with plenty of legroom (in both business and first--first is 2x1 seating and gets you a light meal and complimentary beverages, but the seats themselves aren't much bigger), and the sensation of speed is a hair more (although depending on which part of the NEC you're on, it's not a huge difference). Regional cars use the more traditional Amfleet cars, similar to those used on long-distance services across the East Coast, although the legroom is significantly less than that on the long-distance coaches. But I suppose that riding in that Amfleet tube will give you more of a taste of the "real" Amtrak.

It's up to you to decide if it's worth the extra expense, but with the exchange rate as it is, I'd probably go ahead and book Acela first. Next time you cross the pond (especially if the dollar goes back up), you can try a Regional and compare the two. But that's just me...

 

[Rafi]

Something to consider is that the Regionals are going to stop at more stations, giving you more time to view the sights, whereas the Acela rolls through some of the more scenic stops in Connecticut without stopping.

-Rafi

 

[MrEd]

If time is not a consideration, ride Acela one way and regional coming back. Someone said to avoid the 66/67 regional though, not sure that recommendation still stands.

 

[AlanB]

Something to consider is that the Regionals are going to stop at more stations, giving you more time to view the sights, whereas the Acela rolls through some of the more scenic stops in Connecticut without stopping.
-Rafi

On the other hand, Acela offers windows that are almost twice the size of the windows on a regional, making it a bit easier to see the sights out of either side of the train. On a regional, you get windows only slightly larger than airline windows.

 

[AlanB]

A friend of mine describes Acela as "Star Trek," and I'd agree. They're nice, modern coaches with plenty of legroom (in both business and first--first is 2x1 seating and gets you a light meal and complimentary beverages, but the seats themselves aren't much bigger), and the sensation of speed is a hair more (although depending on which part of the NEC you're on, it's not a huge difference).

If one is expecting an 8 course meal, well then I guess the meal served in first class is a "light" meal. I on the other hand usually walk away pretty full from the meals that I'm served on Acela.

Sealink,

One other thing to consider with Acela FC, is that it's not just the meal that's free. It's all you can drink and that includes alcoholic beverages, all served to you at your seat by an attendant.

Regardless of what type of train or what type of class you choose, make every effort to sit on the right hand side on the train for the best views of the coast and Long Island Sound. If seeing buildings and houses, along with estuarys is more important to you, then sit on the left. Regardless of which side you choose, make sure that you look to the left about 5 minutes after leaving Penn Station for one of the best views of Manhattan.

 

[Sealink]

Thanks for this advice - Acela it is.

And maybe First Class, although I'd hate to arrive at my hotel drunk

 

[AlanB]

And maybe First Class, although I'd hate to arrive at my hotel drunk

Why? :unsure: I've done it many times. Not falling down drunk, but definately not sober.

 

[abqdave]

I am surprised to read Amtrak would offer unlimited alcohol beverages. That seems like a potential lawsuit.

We had an unfortunate incident in Nov. 2006 where a man flying in to Albuquerque was served too much alcohol on the plane. Then he got in his vehicle and headed north toward Santa Fe, stopped at a convenience store on the way and got more beer, and got into an accident on the interstate killing 5 other people and himself.

Among other actions, the state denied US Airway's permit to serve alcohol in New Mexico airspace.

 

[jackal]

If one is expecting an 8 course meal, well then I guess the meal served in first class is a "light" meal. I on the other hand usually walk away pretty full from the meals that I'm served on Acela.

It's been a few years, but my recollection of lunch aboard the Acela in F was a tasty warm sandwich and a bag of chips. Satisfying and fairly decent but far from, say, the dining car on the Empire Builder.

Acela F food is comparable probably to domestic airline first-class food (in its current dismal state, not like it was years ago).

 

[AlanB]

I am surprised to read Amtrak would offer unlimited alcohol beverages. That seems like a potential lawsuit.

We have commuter ops that serve alcohol on the train, where I'm sure a much higher percentage of riders then get into a car and drive home. Odds are that many more people riding in Acela FC are either taking a taxi, another train, or getting a ride. Yes I'm sure that a few do drive, but the vast majority don't.

I would expect that if one looked highly innebriated, that the attendants would cut someone off.

We had an unfortunate incident in Nov. 2006 where a man flying in to Albuquerque was served too much alcohol on the plane. Then he got in his vehicle and headed north toward Santa Fe, stopped at a convenience store on the way and got more beer, and got into an accident on the interstate killing 5 other people and himself.
Among other actions, the state denied US Airway's permit to serve alcohol in New Mexico airspace.

First and foremost, I can't imagine that's an enforcable rule. AFAIK it's Federal airspace, not New Mexico. And airlines fall under Federal rules, just like Amtrak, so I can't imagine how New Mexico expects to enforce such a law.

Second, I'm not even sure of the logic of blaming US Air, when the guy stopped for beer on the way home. One of two things happened in that store. Either they shouldn't have sold him the beer if he was visibly intoxicated, in which case it's really their fault. Or he wasn't drunk enough after his flight to have caused of problem. Either way, I don't see how anyone can really put the blame back on US Air in this case, unless there are more facts not in evidence here.

 

[Guest]

Alan, a wild guess is that the blame fell on the airline because he was drunk when he left the plane. Perhaps the airline employee(s) violated the airlines rules. After that he probably didn't have the capacity to make rational decisions. If it had been a bar that continued to serve past the point of inebriation would it also be held responsible? Could he have been a minor who was not properly carded?

I would prefer to hold the drinker (or a minor drinker's parents) responsible but we all know how that goes.

 

[PRR 60]

The State of New Mexico held US Airways responsible and pulled their liquor license. This despite the fact that the individual also purchased and consumed beer at a convenience store after leaving the airport and there was a two hour gap between the time the plane arrived and the stop at the convenience store during which it is suspected he patronized an airport bar. US was granted a 90-day temporary license, but was later denied a permanent license. [EDITORIAL COMMENT] US was a politically attractive target: certainly more so than a convenience store or, heaven forbid, the government-owned airport. They were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time and are being made a scape-goat for a larger ill. [/EDITORIAL COMMENT]

Right now, US is not serving liquor on any flights that land at ABQ. It has no effect on flights that do not land in New Mexico. The matter is still in discussion with court action possible.

 

[Sealink]

But what's the difference between that and someone who gets drunk in a pub and then gets in a car...

 

[MrFSS]

But what's the difference between that and someone who gets drunk in a pub and then gets in a car...

We're getting off topic here, but see the following from a free law dictionary:

Dram Shop Act - A legislative enactment imposing Strict Liability upon the seller of intoxicating beverages when the sale results in harm to a third party's person, property, or means of support. Under common law, no cause of action existed against the person dispensing intoxicating beverages for the resulting damages that might be inflicted by the intoxicated person. The common law theorized that the proximate cause of the injury was not the furnishing of liquor but rather the act of the purchaser in drinking the liquor. 143 P. 2d 952, 955.

In many jurisdictions, the legislature has enacted civil damage acts or "dram shop acts" creating a statutory remedy against the seller of intoxicating beverages, provided that the resulting intoxication causes the injury. Under such acts, the plaintiff has a cause of action against the vendor when, by reason of the intoxication of another, he or she sustains personal injury, property damage, or loss of support. Under this theory, some jurisdictions have held that a spouse may recover "for his or her loss of support" when the other spouse dies as a result of intoxication, either their own or another's. 158 N.E. 2d 7, 9.

Since the statute involves strict liability, the plaintiff need not show negligence on the part of the seller. The law is unsettled though, as to the seller's rights of indemnity from the intoxicated person who proximately caused the injury. 45 Am. Jur. 2d §612.

And, strict liability is, basically:

Tort liability, which is defined by law, requiring an injured party to prove only that he or she was harmed in a specified way in order to collect damages. For example, the law provides that an employer is responsible if a worker is injured on the job. All the worker must do to collect Workers Compensation Benefits is to prove that the injury took place at work and was not self inflicted.

Even if the injured worked caused the injury accidentally he is still able to collect under the law of the state.

So, under the Dram Shop Act all a person need do is prove the airline supplied the liquor. This is why insurance coverage for places that sell liquor is very expensive.

 

[Guest]

Someone said to avoid the 66/67 regional though, not sure that recommendation still stands.

Why??? 66/67 is a valuable train. It is a standard Regional, only it runs at night.

It is one of the two Regionals that go the entire length of the NEC (BOS-NPN) on weekends.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Someone said to avoid the 66/67 regional though, not sure that recommendation still stands.

Why??? 66/67 is a valuable train. It is a standard Regional, only it runs at night.

It is one of the two Regionals that go the entire length of the NEC (BOS-NPN) on weekends.

Personally, I think that if a man gets into a car visibly drunk, he should be able to be immediately pulled over for drunk driving. The appropriate penalty for drunk driving is a summary execution on the side of the road.

 

[MrEd]

Someone said to avoid the 66/67 regional though, not sure that recommendation still stands.

Why??? 66/67 is a valuable train. It is a standard Regional, only it runs at night.

It is one of the two Regionals that go the entire length of the NEC (BOS-NPN) on weekends.

the issue on 66 train I referenced was discussed in a trip report

66

"Train 66, the train from hell more aptly named 666"

so this person was not recommending to ride the 66 for a variety of reasons.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

The issue with unclean bathrooms probably isn't unique to 66; any train running the full length of the Boston to Newport News trip is going to have bathrooms in especially poor shape at the end of its run, since Amtrak does not clean the bathrooms on NEC trains while en route.

 

[AlanB]

The issue with unclean bathrooms probably isn't unique to 66; any train running the full length of the Boston to Newport News trip is going to have bathrooms in especially poor shape at the end of its run, since Amtrak does not clean the bathrooms on NEC trains while en route.

Actually that's no longer 100% correct Joel. I'm not sure about regional service, since I haven't been on one lately, but at least on Acela Amtrak has implimented a new service this year. They now board someone southbound at Stamford just to spruce things up a bit. This person actually makes an announcement that they will be passing through the cars (although they don't bother with the FC car), collecting trash and sprucing up the restrooms along the way until the train reaches NY where they get off.

I'm not sure if they then do the same for the next northbound Acela or not, but I haven't heard any announcements going north out of NYP. On another forum, someone told me that they get on in Metropark going northbound, but that's unconfirmed.

If indeed this program hasn't yet expanded to the Regionals, hopefully it will be coming soon.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

That is very good news.

 

[Sealink]

Another question I have is about Amtrak's fares - what is the maximum fare on the route? The website shows various fares for different trains, but I can't tell if any of them is the full fare. I just want to see if I should wait till I get to the US before booking, or will the price be significantly higher> Currently is $88 Business, $154.00 First.

 

[AlanB]

The $88 is low bucket, high bucket is $146. And that's before the FC surcharge. So don't wait, book it now. You can always cancel if need be.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

No contest. Book yesterday, if possible.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

The long version is that if you don't get the tickets printed until you get to the station, there shouldn't be any penalty for canceling the reservation.

If you want to cancel over the Internet, you probably need to make an account on amtrak.com rather than making the reservation without signing in. And to cancel over the Internet, you probably need to cancel 10 minutes or an hour or something before the scheduled departure time. (For a sleeper reservation, you'd need to cancel a week in advance to get a refund, but there are no sleepers on the New York to Boston route these days.)

You can probably cancel over the phone and get a full refund regardless if you can call Amtrak's toll free number (for a non-sleeper, as long as it's within two weeks after the travel date), but calling US toll free numbers outside the US may be tricky; there was at one time a set of alternate area codes that would work (with the caller paying the international charges and the party being called paying the long distance charge within the US), but I think I saw someone somewhere saying that that is now gone.