time is relative

[northnorthwest]

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?

 

[Railroad Bill]

Perhaps you should send this letter to Mr. Boardman and his staff. You have some very interesting and informational ideas that could help Amtrak succeed in the business world.

 

[the_traveler]

One of the reasons I like train travel over flying is that there's so much less stress. And that includes before, during and after the trip. And most times during bad weather, trains operate (many times near on time) while many times planes do not.

 

[George Harris]

I have felt that New York - Greensboro - Charlotte - Atlanta would be best served by two overnight trains about 6 hours apart.

Southbound, one arriving Charlotte about 8:00 the other arriving Atlanta about 8:00,

Northbound, one arriving Washington DC about 8:00, the other arriving New York about 9:00.

Given an end to end time of about 17 to 18 hours, back up to the get the departure times.

The northbound early arrival train is very close to the mid 1960's and earlier Crescent Limited. The late train southbound would have a late evening DC departure but has no earlier Southern RR equivalent, other than being a faster Piedmont Ltd.

The late arrival in Atlanta if continued west would make for a decent morning arrival in Dallas if continued west on the "Crescent - Star" routing. Same for a decent evening departure out of Dallas to the early northbound departure out of Atlanta.

 

[Anderson]

George Harris, on 08 Feb 2014 - 01:24 AM, said:
I have felt that New York - Greensboro - Charlotte - Atlanta would be best served by two overnight trains about 6 hours apart.

Southbound, one arriving Charlotte about 8:00 the other arriving Atlanta about 8:00,

Northbound, one arriving Washington DC about 8:00, the other arriving New York about 9:00.

Given an end to end time of about 17 to 18 hours, back up to the get the departure times.

The northbound early arrival train is very close to the mid 1960's and earlier Crescent Limited. The late train southbound would have a late evening DC departure but has no earlier Southern RR equivalent, other than being a faster Piedmont Ltd.

The late arrival in Atlanta if continued west would make for a decent morning arrival in Dallas if continued west on the "Crescent - Star" routing. Same for a decent evening departure out of Dallas to the early northbound departure out of Atlanta.

It's also worth noting that nothing says that both trains must share a WAS-CLT routing. One could easily be routed WAS-CVS-CLT as the Crescent is now, with the other routed WAS-RVR-RGH-CLT. However, I do think running both via CVS would have a strong case as well, since though the hours would be awkward, there's likely some CLT-NYP traffic that could be picked up. Even if the traffic were only on par with the Meteor at RVR, 14-20k/yr for an intermediate stop is nothing to sneeze at. In the meantime, the later train (a slightly earlier Crescent) should make a killing on the CVS/LYH-WAS market in particular.

 

[Walt]

One of the reasons I like train travel over flying is that there's so much less stress. And that includes before, during and after the trip. And most times during brad weather, trains operate (many times near on time) while many times planes do not.

Ditto. My feelings exactly.

The last time I took a plane, which was like 11 or 12 years ago, I had my (then) 4 year old kid with me. I was "randomly" selected for additional security screening (I guess those of Italian descent are on some watch list), and I was required to leave my 4 year old, alone and unsupervised in the terminal while they took me into this room. Never again, TSA, never again. I switched to Amtrak for all my LD travel, and never looked back.

Hummm.... maybe Amtrak should start an advertising campaign highlighting/exploiting the wretched evils of today's airports and the TSA.

 

[Anderson]

Walt, on 08 Feb 2014 - 08:31 AM, said:

One of the reasons I like train travel over flying is that there's so much less stress. And that includes before, during and after the trip. And most times during brad weather, trains operate (many times near on time) while many times planes do not.

Ditto. My feelings exactly.

The last time I took a plane, which was like 11 or 12 years ago, I had my (then) 4 year old kid with me. I was "randomly" selected for additional security screening (I guess those of Italian descent are on some watch list), and I was required to leave my 4 year old, alone and unsupervised in the terminal while they took me into this room. Never again, TSA, never again. I switched to Amtrak for all my LD travel, and never looked back.

Hummm.... maybe Amtrak should start an advertising campaign highlighting/exploiting the wretched evils of today's airports and the TSA.

Amtrak has done some decent advertising on this front, usually gently lampooning the latest TSA ****.

 

[SarahZ]

Cross-country, however, those "several hours" turn into "1-2 days" of extra time.

Also, with those several hours I'm saving, that means more time with friends or family, more time sight-seeing, more time swimming in the hotel pool, etc. If I'm heading home, that means I get home several hours earlier, which is great at the end of a long trip (especially if it's for business).

The TSA Hokey Pokey can be annoying, but I still love flying because it gets me where I want to go so much faster. I also love taking the train (if time allows) because I enjoy the scenery and it's relaxing. In my case, the two aren't mutually exclusive. I decide which method of transportation I'm going to use based on cost and time. Sometimes the train is the better option, and sometimes flying is the better option.

 

[benjibear]

You are not going to win an argument that train is better to the average person outside the NEC and maybe some other areas like Chicago or California. Until the trains increase in speed and the train frequency is increased, for the person that time is money, flying will be the way to go. Even leisure travelers that are fitting in the most out of a vacation it is hard to justify the extra time. These travelers need to think of the train as part of the trip and not just the necessary evil of going somewhere.

 

[gmushial]

Cross-country, however, those "several hours" turn into "1-2 days" of extra time.

Also, with those several hours I'm saving, that means more time with friends or family, more time sight-seeing, more time swimming in the hotel pool, etc. If I'm heading home, that means I get home several hours earlier, which is great at the end of a long trip (especially if it's for business).

The TSA Hokey Pokey can be annoying, but I still love flying because it gets me where I want to go so much faster. I also love taking the train (if time allows) because I enjoy the scenery and it's relaxing. In my case, the two aren't mutually exclusive. I decide which method of transportation I'm going to use based on cost and time. Sometimes the train is the better option, and sometimes flying is the better option.

You are not going to win an argument that train is better to the average person outside the NEC and maybe some other areas like Chicago or California. Until the trains increase in speed and the train frequency is increased, for the person that time is money, flying will be the way to go. Even leisure travelers that are fitting in the most out of a vacation it is hard to justify the extra time. These travelers need to think of the train as part of the trip and not just the necessary evil of going somewhere.

I have to agree w/re the statistics that for the LD routes, a flying cattlecar will get one there faster... but at what expense? Or, what failed to happen on the way? Yes, if one has has has to be somewhere tomorrow by noon: then, yes the flying cattlecar. But if I'm going to be presenting a paper - I really appreciate the two days to myself - it give me time to mull over possible questions and how to answer them; or maybe how to reorder the fine points etc. If I'm going to make a presentation - same story: gives me time to hone it... back at the office there are always interrupts; and if I go home to find quiet, there are still interruptions. And if travel on Amtrak isn't for business, one gets 2 days +/- of unscheduled time, time to do whatever the situation dictates: sleep, watch scenery, socialize, or simply just do nothing.

 

[SarahZ]

And if travel on Amtrak isn't for business, one gets 2 days +/- of unscheduled time, time to do whatever the situation dictates: sleep, watch scenery, socialize, or simply just do nothing.

That's my point, though. I'd rather spend more time at my destination than on the train. If I only get X number of days in San Francisco, I want to spend all of those days in San Francisco so I can see as much of the city as possible.

A better example is our trip to ABQ. I get really annoyed because we spend four days on the train and four days in ABQ. Since we only get to go once per year, I'd rather spend every day of our trip with his family, our friends, and sightseeing around ABQ instead of half of our vacation time on the train. It's a moot point since Brent refuses to fly, but if he didn't have that phobia, we'd fly every year.

I'm not trying to argue. We all have different priorities, and that's fine. Nobody is "wrong". Once I'm retired and I'm not limited by vacation days, I'll take the train more often, but until then, the train is taking up valuable sightseeing and socializing time. Again, that's just MY opinion, though, and I understand why people hate flying. I don't begrudge anyone for that, and I hope I'm not begrudged for preferring flying over the train right now (because that's what my lifestyle demands, and I really can't change that). I'm just offering up the flip side of the coin and one of the reasons some people may never change their minds about thinking of the train as part of the vacation.

 

[Ocala Mike]

For a trip less than 1,000 miles or so without having to make connections, your point is well taken. The flip side of the coin is demonstrated by another post in this forum where somebody wants to travel from Jacksonville, FL to Yosemite Park by train.

 

[Alexandria Nick]

Cross-country, however, those "several hours" turn into "1-2 days" of extra time.

Also, with those several hours I'm saving, that means more time with friends or family, more time sight-seeing, more time swimming in the hotel pool, etc. If I'm heading home, that means I get home several hours earlier, which is great at the end of a long trip (especially if it's for business).

The TSA Hokey Pokey can be annoying, but I still love flying because it gets me where I want to go so much faster. I also love taking the train (if time allows) because I enjoy the scenery and it's relaxing. In my case, the two aren't mutually exclusive. I decide which method of transportation I'm going to use based on cost and time. Sometimes the train is the better option, and sometimes flying is the better option.

You are not going to win an argument that train is better to the average person outside the NEC and maybe some other areas like Chicago or California. Until the trains increase in speed and the train frequency is increased, for the person that time is money, flying will be the way to go. Even leisure travelers that are fitting in the most out of a vacation it is hard to justify the extra time. These travelers need to think of the train as part of the trip and not just the necessary evil of going somewhere.

I have to agree w/re the statistics that for the LD routes, a flying cattlecar will get one there faster... but at what expense? Or, what failed to happen on the way? Yes, if one has has has to be somewhere tomorrow by noon: then, yes the flying cattlecar. But if I'm going to be presenting a paper - I really appreciate the two days to myself - it give me time to mull over possible questions and how to answer them; or maybe how to reorder the fine points etc. If I'm going to make a presentation - same story: gives me time to hone it... back at the office there are always interrupts; and if I go home to find quiet, there are still interruptions. And if travel on Amtrak isn't for business, one gets 2 days +/- of unscheduled time, time to do whatever the situation dictates: sleep, watch scenery, socialize, or simply just do nothing.

I think you'd be rather lucky to have a job that allows you to be out of the office like that, to be honest about it.

 

[SarahZ]

I think you'd be rather lucky to have a job that allows you to be out of the office like that, to be honest about it.

That was my other thought. When I travel, I get one "travel day" on either end. If the meetings and such are over in the morning, then I'm expected to fly/drive back immediately afterward and don't get that extra day on the end.

Some of my friends have a bit more wiggle room with their employers, but they also telecommute most of the time anyway.

 

[Texan Eagle]

Whenever I see these kind of threads (they come up every month or so) about people claiming how an 18 hour train ride is so much better over a 4 hour flight, I can't get to agree with them, I am just jealous, that they can afford this luxury.

I have a full-time job and it only allows me to take about 15 days of leave per year. Now, remember I am not talking about some slavery-level job, 3 weeks is almost standard vacation policy for offices across the US, you have to be working in a really great company or at a really good higher-up position to get more. In this case, every single day of vacation becomes extremely valuable. As a result, Amtrak is 99% times never a viable option for my travel plans. Forget obscure places, even relatively short SF-LA runs are not viable by train since it eats up an entire day traveling while I can hop on a plane and be there in an hour.

So yeah, folks who keep claiming how much better it is to take Amtrak for your travels rather than flying, good for you. For people who have a normal fulltime job, its not going to cut out well until this country can get a much faster passenger rail service.

 

[Walt]

Also, with those several hours I'm saving, that means more time with friends or family, more time sight-seeing, more time swimming in the hotel pool, etc. If I'm heading home, that means I get home several hours earlier, which is great at the end of a long trip (especially if it's for business).

I can make the same kind of argument, but for taking a LD train. I can spend more time with my friends and family while on board a train. We hangout and eat together, including with the teens, if for no other reason, is that they're being held captive on-board the train.

And I live a lot longer, because I am not being subject to the intense stress of flying.

 

[SarahZ]

Also, with those several hours I'm saving, that means more time with friends or family, more time sight-seeing, more time swimming in the hotel pool, etc. If I'm heading home, that means I get home several hours earlier, which is great at the end of a long trip (especially if it's for business).

I can make the same kind of argument, but for taking a LD train. I can spend more time with my friends and family while on board a train. We hangout and eat together, including with the teens, if for no other reason, is that they're being held captive on-board the train.

If I were traveling with my kids, it might be different since it would be such an awesome experience for them, but since I travel alone or with my boyfriend, it's really just "waiting to get to our destination".

So, I get what you're saying about being with family. In our case, though, we're traveling TO family for a visit, so we want more time there with them. It's just an opposite thing, that's all. I'm hoping to take my middle niece on a train some day since she's starting to get pretty fascinated with them, and I think that will be a lot of fun since it will be all about her instead of just "waiting to get there".

 

[northnorthwest]

Whenever I see these kind of threads (they come up every month or so) about people claiming how an 18 hour train ride is so much better over a 4 hour flight, I can't get to agree with them, I am just jealous, that they can afford this luxury.

I have a full-time job and it only allows me to take about 15 days of leave per year. Now, remember I am not talking about some slavery-level job, 3 weeks is almost standard vacation policy for offices across the US, you have to be working in a really great company or at a really good higher-up position to get more. In this case, every single day of vacation becomes extremely valuable. As a result, Amtrak is 99% times never a viable option for my travel plans. Forget obscure places, even relatively short SF-LA runs are not viable by train since it eats up an entire day traveling while I can hop on a plane and be there in an hour.

So yeah, folks who keep claiming how much better it is to take Amtrak for your travels rather than flying, good for you. For people who have a normal fulltime job, its not going to cut out well until this country can get a much faster passenger rail service.

SF-LA is exactly the kind of trip I'm talking about. If they had an overnight train on this route it might allow you to take that option if you wanted to since the distance is not too long and both are major cities.

 

[gmushial]

Cross-country, however, those "several hours" turn into "1-2 days" of extra time.

Also, with those several hours I'm saving, that means more time with friends or family, more time sight-seeing, more time swimming in the hotel pool, etc. If I'm heading home, that means I get home several hours earlier, which is great at the end of a long trip (especially if it's for business).

The TSA Hokey Pokey can be annoying, but I still love flying because it gets me where I want to go so much faster. I also love taking the train (if time allows) because I enjoy the scenery and it's relaxing. In my case, the two aren't mutually exclusive. I decide which method of transportation I'm going to use based on cost and time. Sometimes the train is the better option, and sometimes flying is the better option.

You are not going to win an argument that train is better to the average person outside the NEC and maybe some other areas like Chicago or California. Until the trains increase in speed and the train frequency is increased, for the person that time is money, flying will be the way to go. Even leisure travelers that are fitting in the most out of a vacation it is hard to justify the extra time. These travelers need to think of the train as part of the trip and not just the necessary evil of going somewhere.

I have to agree w/re the statistics that for the LD routes, a flying cattlecar will get one there faster... but at what expense? Or, what failed to happen on the way? Yes, if one has has has to be somewhere tomorrow by noon: then, yes the flying cattlecar. But if I'm going to be presenting a paper - I really appreciate the two days to myself - it give me time to mull over possible questions and how to answer them; or maybe how to reorder the fine points etc. If I'm going to make a presentation - same story: gives me time to hone it... back at the office there are always interrupts; and if I go home to find quiet, there are still interruptions. And if travel on Amtrak isn't for business, one gets 2 days +/- of unscheduled time, time to do whatever the situation dictates: sleep, watch scenery, socialize, or simply just do nothing.

I think you'd be rather lucky to have a job that allows you to be out of the office like that, to be honest about it.

When one owns the company... one get's to set the rules ;-)

 

[gmushial]

Also, with those several hours I'm saving, that means more time with friends or family, more time sight-seeing, more time swimming in the hotel pool, etc. If I'm heading home, that means I get home several hours earlier, which is great at the end of a long trip (especially if it's for business).

I can make the same kind of argument, but for taking a LD train. I can spend more time with my friends and family while on board a train. We hangout and eat together, including with the teens, if for no other reason, is that they're being held captive on-board the train.

And I live a lot longer, because I am not being subject to the intense stress of flying.

I think one can extend that argument: if one expects their people to work like machines, then I guess it's more important for them to be at their desks doing such... but our take is: let machines work like machines, and let people do that which can't be done by machines... which means rested people are a whole lot more useful/productive than tired/jetlagged people. Besides, people that are passionate about their work, they can work anywhere, and will... so: let them pick how and when they work - if at the end of the year, I look at what got done, what got invented, and if both are positive, then so be it.

Years ago I learned: people used to ask me where I worked, in that I always seemed to be happy; and I would say: I played at Stanford, but they paid me as if I worked there. I "worked" 70 hr weeks, and loved every minute of it. If my people can feel the same, then it's a win-win for all concerned.

 

[benjibear]

Also, with those several hours I'm saving, that means more time with friends or family, more time sight-seeing, more time swimming in the hotel pool, etc. If I'm heading home, that means I get home several hours earlier, which is great at the end of a long trip (especially if it's for business).

I can make the same kind of argument, but for taking a LD train. I can spend more time with my friends and family while on board a train. We hangout and eat together, including with the teens, if for no other reason, is that they're being held captive on-board the train.

And I live a lot longer, because I am not being subject to the intense stress of flying.

I think one can extend that argument: if one expects their people to work like machines, then I guess it's more important for them to be at their desks doing such... but our take is: let machines work like machines, and let people do that which can't be done by machines... which means rested people are a whole lot more useful/productive than tired/jetlagged people. Besides, people that are passionate about their work, they can work anywhere, and will... so: let them pick how and when they work - if at the end of the year, I look at what got done, what got invented, and if both are positive, then so be it.

Years ago I learned: people used to ask me where I worked, in that I always seemed to be happy; and I would say: I played at Stanford, but they paid me as if I worked there. I "worked" 70 hr weeks, and loved every minute of it. If my people can feel the same, then it's a win-win for all concerned.

Some businesses are not like that. Many are expecting people to work to their maximum, give up their family, and just do for the company. I could not continually work a 70 hour week. Maybe you could. Not everyone can work that same pace. That is the problem with an ex-employer. It was expected that I keep a very unhealthy pace.

 

[Texan Eagle]

I think one can extend that argument: if one expects their people to work like machines, then I guess it's more important for them to be at their desks doing such... but our take is: let machines work like machines, and let people do that which can't be done by machines... which means rested people are a whole lot more useful/productive than tired/jetlagged people. Besides, people that are passionate about their work, they can work anywhere, and will... so: let them pick how and when they work - if at the end of the year, I look at what got done, what got invented, and if both are positive, then so be it.

Years ago I learned: people used to ask me where I worked, in that I always seemed to be happy; and I would say: I played at Stanford, but they paid me as if I worked there. I "worked" 70 hr weeks, and loved every minute of it. If my people can feel the same, then it's a win-win for all concerned.

If only all employers thought like you. Unfortunately most of them in the corporate world don't. I am at my third job now and at every place getting every day of vacation approved has been a struggle. You mentioned in an earlier post you are owner of a company, can I send you my Resume?

 

[gmushial]

I think one can extend that argument: if one expects their people to work like machines, then I guess it's more important for them to be at their desks doing such... but our take is: let machines work like machines, and let people do that which can't be done by machines... which means rested people are a whole lot more useful/productive than tired/jetlagged people. Besides, people that are passionate about their work, they can work anywhere, and will... so: let them pick how and when they work - if at the end of the year, I look at what got done, what got invented, and if both are positive, then so be it.

Years ago I learned: people used to ask me where I worked, in that I always seemed to be happy; and I would say: I played at Stanford, but they paid me as if I worked there. I "worked" 70 hr weeks, and loved every minute of it. If my people can feel the same, then it's a win-win for all concerned.

If only all employers thought like you. Unfortunately most of them in the corporate world don't. I am at my third job now and at every place getting every day of vacation approved has been a struggle. You mentioned in an earlier post you are owner of a company, can I send you my Resume?

Generally we're looking for PhDs in math or OR.

 

[gmushial]

Also, with those several hours I'm saving, that means more time with friends or family, more time sight-seeing, more time swimming in the hotel pool, etc. If I'm heading home, that means I get home several hours earlier, which is great at the end of a long trip (especially if it's for business).

I can make the same kind of argument, but for taking a LD train. I can spend more time with my friends and family while on board a train. We hangout and eat together, including with the teens, if for no other reason, is that they're being held captive on-board the train.

And I live a lot longer, because I am not being subject to the intense stress of flying.

I think one can extend that argument: if one expects their people to work like machines, then I guess it's more important for them to be at their desks doing such... but our take is: let machines work like machines, and let people do that which can't be done by machines... which means rested people are a whole lot more useful/productive than tired/jetlagged people. Besides, people that are passionate about their work, they can work anywhere, and will... so: let them pick how and when they work - if at the end of the year, I look at what got done, what got invented, and if both are positive, then so be it.

Years ago I learned: people used to ask me where I worked, in that I always seemed to be happy; and I would say: I played at Stanford, but they paid me as if I worked there. I "worked" 70 hr weeks, and loved every minute of it. If my people can feel the same, then it's a win-win for all concerned.

Some businesses are not like that. Many are expecting people to work to their maximum, give up their family, and just do for the company. I could not continually work a 70 hour week. Maybe you could. Not everyone can work that same pace. That is the problem with an ex-employer. It was expected that I keep a very unhealthy pace.

Playing, or what felt like it, for 70hr a week - was easy, was fun, and wish I could do it again.... that was the mistake I made in forming a group, ie, someone has to now do the paperwork :-( but it's still fun, just not to the same level as previously.

 

[SarahZ]

What's OR?