northnorthwest
Service Attendant
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2013
- Messages
- 159
I've been traveling frequently between PHL and ATL or GNS. Sometimes I take the train; sometimes I fly. Here's what I experienced on my most recent flight:
--total time from start to finish (left house to arrived at other house): 6.5 hours
--total cost: $139 plus someone gave me a ride to ATL airport
--stressful traffic in ATL
--unpleasant and stressful airport security
--delayed flight about 1hr
--people not understanding how to board a flight (taking so long, trying to bring huge bags and can't fit it in the flight)
--a very small seat with a backpack in front where my legs can't move
--very loud business folks nonstop on their cell phones trying to make deals and all that, arguing with the workers in a rude way
--overall felt a bit like a criminal, though I've never been one
And my most recent train trip:
--total time from start to finish: 17 hours
--total cost: $113 plus someone gave me a ride to GNS station
--read the newspaper for an hour at night, read a magazine in the morning, fell asleep around 1am and up completely about 8:30 or so
--had plenty of space at the seat, absolutely no stress the whole time, no security issue, ate the food I brought, if I go south I sometimes buy dinner
--time I was fully awake on the train was about 5 hours
These experiences confirm what I've come to believe, which is that although the total hours spent on the train are a lot more than the flight, the overall experience is not that long. In term of comfort and quality of time spent there is no comparison. The train is also cheaper, in this case slightly. However, it is often a lot cheaper than the flight.
I wonder when people feel they need to get to their destination as soon as possible what they are really going to do in that extra several hours. I don't think I spent my time any better or more efficiently when I flew.
Leaving aside the fact that Amtrak has no money...
What Amtrak needs to do is invest and improve between markets that are within this travel distance, i.e., you can board in the evening or late afternoon at point A and arrive at point B the next morning. That works well for southbound to ATL on the Crescent.
They should make a separate train between NYP and ATL and have a longer route or connecting route at ATL.
They should leave ATL northbound a few hours earlier to arrive in WAS, PHL, NYP earlier in the morning.
I really think with some slight improvements, a few more trains, and and a great advertising campain Amtrak could compete with flights in the 12-16 hour train travel range using overnight travel: NYP-ATL, NYP-CHI, etc.
Or perhaps I just like train travel and don't understand that most people are horrified at the idea. I recently read something where a poster was complaining about a 5-6 hour train trip and how it was sooo long and driving her nuts and she will never do that again.
What do you think?
--total time from start to finish (left house to arrived at other house): 6.5 hours
--total cost: $139 plus someone gave me a ride to ATL airport
--stressful traffic in ATL
--unpleasant and stressful airport security
--delayed flight about 1hr
--people not understanding how to board a flight (taking so long, trying to bring huge bags and can't fit it in the flight)
--a very small seat with a backpack in front where my legs can't move
--very loud business folks nonstop on their cell phones trying to make deals and all that, arguing with the workers in a rude way
--overall felt a bit like a criminal, though I've never been one
And my most recent train trip:
--total time from start to finish: 17 hours
--total cost: $113 plus someone gave me a ride to GNS station
--read the newspaper for an hour at night, read a magazine in the morning, fell asleep around 1am and up completely about 8:30 or so
--had plenty of space at the seat, absolutely no stress the whole time, no security issue, ate the food I brought, if I go south I sometimes buy dinner
--time I was fully awake on the train was about 5 hours
These experiences confirm what I've come to believe, which is that although the total hours spent on the train are a lot more than the flight, the overall experience is not that long. In term of comfort and quality of time spent there is no comparison. The train is also cheaper, in this case slightly. However, it is often a lot cheaper than the flight.
I wonder when people feel they need to get to their destination as soon as possible what they are really going to do in that extra several hours. I don't think I spent my time any better or more efficiently when I flew.
Leaving aside the fact that Amtrak has no money...
What Amtrak needs to do is invest and improve between markets that are within this travel distance, i.e., you can board in the evening or late afternoon at point A and arrive at point B the next morning. That works well for southbound to ATL on the Crescent.
They should make a separate train between NYP and ATL and have a longer route or connecting route at ATL.
They should leave ATL northbound a few hours earlier to arrive in WAS, PHL, NYP earlier in the morning.
I really think with some slight improvements, a few more trains, and and a great advertising campain Amtrak could compete with flights in the 12-16 hour train travel range using overnight travel: NYP-ATL, NYP-CHI, etc.
Or perhaps I just like train travel and don't understand that most people are horrified at the idea. I recently read something where a poster was complaining about a 5-6 hour train trip and how it was sooo long and driving her nuts and she will never do that again.
What do you think?