I feel like the existence of High Speed Rail elsewhere is hurting our progress in the U.S. at this point. Rather than making realistic plans to add service, governments would rather spend tax money on paper studies of some 200 mph train that has zero chance of being built. High Speed Rail supposedly makes 79-mph service obsolete, but it doesn't exist in our country, it's just a straw man that's used as an excuse to do nothing.
Why aren't overnight trains able to compete with flying?
- Thread starter fhussain44
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
I feel like the existence of High Speed Rail elsewhere is hurting our progress in the U.S. at this point. Rather than making realistic plans to add service, governments would rather spend tax money on paper studies of some 200 mph train that has zero chance of being built. High Speed Rail supposedly makes 79-mph service obsolete, but it doesn't exist in our country, it's just a straw man that's used as an excuse to do nothing.
Actually, Isn't there quite a bit of short haul flying in Europe?
When I've done it, it's mostly to connect to international flights at JFK. I could see taking Amtrak to international flights in Newark, as there's a train station at the airport, but getting from Penn Station to JFK is rather inconvenient, requiring a 2 seat ride on local transit. Much more convenient to just check my bags at BWI, fly into JFK and connect to the overseas flight.
France has already banned flights that could be easily completed by train and other EU nations are expected to follow:
https://e360.yale.edu/digest/france-will-ban-short-flights-that-could-be-replaced-by-a-train-trip
I really wish people would stop talking about "200 mph trains" and "79 mph trains." The speedometer on my car tops at 140 mph, which suggests that I could drive it that fast, but, in reality, I've never ever done so. Aside from the fact I'd get the mother of all speeding tickets, I don't think there's a single road in this country outside of a NASCAR track that's engineered to allow driving that fast. And even on journeys that are mostly on roads with speed limits of 60-70 mph, I consider myself lucky if my average point to point speed is 50 mph.
The Acela is supposed to be a "135 mph" train between Washington and New York. Actually, the end-to-end average speed is more like 80 mph, which is pretty respectable. Between New York and Boston, it's supposed to be a "150 mph train," but the end-to-end average speed is closer to 70 mph (thanks to the State of Connecticut and Metro-North).
I don't have the performance figures of the Euro and Asian HSRs off the top of my head, but I think that a lot of those "200 mph trains" actually have end-to-send speeds more like 100 mph. That's faster than the Acela, and being able to do that consistently would cut the Washington-New York travel time by 30 minutes, which would make it even more competitive speed-wise with flying. However, even under the current schedule, Amtrak service (including the Northeast Regionals) competes very well with flying. Actually, the current performance is pretty impressive, considering that the trains run on aging infrastructure, some of which was built right after the Civil War.
Rail advocates and politicians should stop yapping about the potential top speed of the trains, which might only occur on a few miles of the route, and focus on total travel time or point-to-point average speed and the frequency of service. That's what makes a train service convenient and competitive.
crescent-zephyr
Engineer
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2015
- Messages
- 4,627
Are you counting the air-train as part of the 2 seat ride?
OK, but it hasn't happened yet. And so far, it's only France that has definitely announced this, and also only for distances that can be done by train in 2 1/2 hours or less. If applied to the US, that means that Washington-New York flights would continue.
For $7.75 I sure am.
Seat 1 - Subway or LIRR to Air Train
Seat 2 -- Air train to terminal
Europe and Asia don’t have even close the short haul market that America has.
In terms of flights under nautical 100 miles, America has a dominant market, with hundreds per day. In the 100-300 nautical mile market, America has an egregious number. Granted, many are for connections, but there are a fair amount that are not...
I’m about to take one tomorrow because it’s my only option of transportation. Worse, is it’s a government subsidized flight that makes money even if it takes off empty.
Cape Air KBHB - KBOS
Last edited:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/simpleflying.com/the-usas-ridiculously-short-routes/amp/
Just check out some of these flights, many flying over 10 flights a day between the city pairs.
Just check out some of these flights, many flying over 10 flights a day between the city pairs.
I believe Austrian Airlines will now need to shift some short-haul flights to rail as part of a bailout. The key one is Salzburg to Vienna. (CNN coverage)
west point
Engineer
Marc rider: You IMO are on the right track (pun). It is not necessary to make short segments very HSR. Just get rid of the slow(er) sections. For example bridges. Portal is now 60 MPH with the new Portal North I believe will be planned for 90. That will save probably 1 minute.
Now the 3 bridges in MD will save 6 minutes total. Not much but there will no longer be delays for bridge openings or worse failure to close. Amtrak seems to have some recovery time built in for these problems.
Now the slow alignment problems on the NEC are worse. Such as the many slower spots Newark - North PHL. Also south of PHL- WASH. Just getting those spots to an average of 100 MPH would reduce NYP <> WASH to under 2 hours,
How does this apply off Amtrak owner ? Just get freight RRs to eliminate their slows to a max 60 - 80 MPH. Then PTC max of 90 would prevail. Then Amtrak can beat any driver times. As well 3 hour train times will eliminate much of the air travel of less than 200 miles. That is only on operating train routes.
Night trips n sleeper would enable sleepers any where from 300 miles to 500 miles and a few to 600 miles at 10 hours travel.
Now the 3 bridges in MD will save 6 minutes total. Not much but there will no longer be delays for bridge openings or worse failure to close. Amtrak seems to have some recovery time built in for these problems.
Now the slow alignment problems on the NEC are worse. Such as the many slower spots Newark - North PHL. Also south of PHL- WASH. Just getting those spots to an average of 100 MPH would reduce NYP <> WASH to under 2 hours,
How does this apply off Amtrak owner ? Just get freight RRs to eliminate their slows to a max 60 - 80 MPH. Then PTC max of 90 would prevail. Then Amtrak can beat any driver times. As well 3 hour train times will eliminate much of the air travel of less than 200 miles. That is only on operating train routes.
Night trips n sleeper would enable sleepers any where from 300 miles to 500 miles and a few to 600 miles at 10 hours travel.
Oh you're right, but American governments have been paying for studies that actually claim 200 mph as an average. For example, a 2019 study claims that a Cleveland to Chicago hyperloop could be built under or over Lake Erie with a 32-minute travel time. There's zero chance of that happening, the study was done only because it's an interesting thing to study, but it .
Last edited:
Overnight trains are not successful anywhere in the world for travel other than tourism.
Simply put, for business or necessity travel, I want to be in my OWN bed, home with my family or in my environment - as long as possible. I’m certainly not doing an overnight when I can fly for 1/4 the time.
That said, for trips UNDER 4 hours, if I can have my travel time within 45 minutes of flight time, train is a viable option. (Less airport/security time, train stations in city hubs as opposed to remote airport)
Simply put, for business or necessity travel, I want to be in my OWN bed, home with my family or in my environment - as long as possible. I’m certainly not doing an overnight when I can fly for 1/4 the time.
That said, for trips UNDER 4 hours, if I can have my travel time within 45 minutes of flight time, train is a viable option. (Less airport/security time, train stations in city hubs as opposed to remote airport)
This last week we were in LA for a vacation. On Thursday we took an UBER to the airport for our 9:25 red eye return flight to east coast. The flight was delayed, delayed, then cancelled. We ended up spending the night in the airport and catching a 2:30pm next day flight. Total time lost due to flight cancel was 20 hours. And that STILL was preferred over train travel time.
Unequivocally false.
just a pretty untrue blanket statement.
I use the overnight train from Boston to DC all the time for business, and it is one of the most well patronized trains in Amtrak. Are all of the passengers in the whole train leisure?
Blanket statements making dubious claims aren’t really helpful. There is a lot of gray in this stuff.
There is a whole documentary about crowded Chinese night trains where they interview a guy who works in Shanghai for buisness. He takes the overnight train there, and the fast train back to Beijing.
I’ll try to find the video for you to have some proof for what I say.
I’ll keep going. My mom lives in NW Indiana and I help her to Dr appts when sister needs a break). I’m suburb of NYC. I can wake up at 4:30 am, catch an UBER ($75) to the airport (40 minutes that early), hit the 6:30am to OHare (245 RT) land in 2 hrs, catch the bus (can also take an UBER) to NW Indiana (1.5 hours with traffic during rush hour - being conservative) and have coffee with her at the kitchen table at 10am (9am CST). Cost and time are drastically improved. It’s a no brainer.
I mean, even for business I’d fly in by 9am and simply leave after 5pm and be back in my own bed by 11pm. It’s just a long work day.
All that said, let’s be frank here. I HAVE taken the train. (Never for business, I’m a VP and would get fired for recommending an overnight train - efficiency and cost savings are my job). But to see mom or visit where I had time, I love being on and taking an overnight train. So overnight trains are literally for train fans. The cost and time are just incredibly high to think anyone in a sleeper is doing it because it made the most sense. They are doing it for the same reason all of us do - the love of it.
I will however say that the DC to Orlando car train IS a viable service option. I have to believe it’s their most popular and I wouldn’t be surprised if behind closed doors Amtrak wishes they could cut all overnights (except that one) - and use that energy to improve < 5 hour station to station travel.
I mean, even for business I’d fly in by 9am and simply leave after 5pm and be back in my own bed by 11pm. It’s just a long work day.
All that said, let’s be frank here. I HAVE taken the train. (Never for business, I’m a VP and would get fired for recommending an overnight train - efficiency and cost savings are my job). But to see mom or visit where I had time, I love being on and taking an overnight train. So overnight trains are literally for train fans. The cost and time are just incredibly high to think anyone in a sleeper is doing it because it made the most sense. They are doing it for the same reason all of us do - the love of it.
I will however say that the DC to Orlando car train IS a viable service option. I have to believe it’s their most popular and I wouldn’t be surprised if behind closed doors Amtrak wishes they could cut all overnights (except that one) - and use that energy to improve < 5 hour station to station travel.
Why not just fly in (it’s like a hop flight) - and fly back the same day? Cost, efficiency and family time are all winners by flying. If your reasoning is “I love trains” then that’s a great reason and one we all share. Speaking of which, I’m going to try that overnight looks like fun. The sleeper is 289 - not bad at all. How’s food, service? Cheers!
I would encourage you to not use personal anecdotes for stating “truths” about trends in train travel. They really mean nothing. I only use the Night Owl reference because I have taken the train frequently for business (even before I became a train nerd) and know it’s trends.
Your original statement said “anywhere in the world,” and again, that is absolutely false.
The most popular and patronized overnight train in Amtrak is NE Regional 65, 66, 67, and it was often full even before they added the sleeper car in April. It’s cost competitive with flying (even with a private room) especially when factoring the cost of a hotel. In coach, it’s one of the cheapest ways to get from Boston to DC. Keep in mind that not everyone pays for a sleeper, so you can snag a night train for under $50 (currently offering $35 one month out).
All you’ve mentioned so far are your own personal preferences, not actual trends or proof for backing up your original dubious claim of “not viable anywhere in the world.”
Sorry for the strong response back. But that’s what we do here: discuss things with passion!
Service on the night owl is great (for Amtrak). Food sucks, but hey, nobody takes eastern trains for the food.
EDIT: I noticed you’re relatively new. Welcome!
Last edited:
My brother once took three days to fly from Chicago to Washington. Summer thunderstorms kept cancelling the flights, and he was sent home to wait for a flight the next day.
I once took almost 24 hours to fly from Baltimore to Reno. We actually got in the air, but a mechanical problem forced us to return, and by the time we landed, there were no connections left that day, so they sent us home, and sent us out the next day.
The big question for the US, is whether there are any other routes where the Night Owl (65/66/67) could be replicated. And even the successful Night Owl only carries a small fraction of the total Boston - Washington passenger traffic. Even the day trains tend to empty out in New York, and only a small percentage of the total NEC traffic is doing BOS - WAS. I also wonder whether they could fill set-out sleepers in New York, a service they used to have called the "Executive Sleeper."
Another cause of slowness is heat restrictions. Last week on the NEC, the Acela on my morning trip did it's usual 125 mph max on the stretch I ride, but the afternoon ride back, top speed was limited to 100 mph (more like 95) because it was a very hot day, and the temps were in the 90s. Some of the freight railroads are even worse about heat restrictions, and do stuff like limit speeds to 30 mph when it gets really hot. Considering that "really hot" temperatures are going to become more common, that's something that needs to be addressed for the rail industry in general.
125 is pretty good!
during the heat wave on June 29th, there was a 100mph cap. The Acela was slower than a NE regional with an hour late arrival at SS.
Italy (among other hot rail-faring nations) sprays cool water on their tracks as well as paints them white to keep it cool.
Last edited:
Well, it wasn't hot in the morning, and on that segment, the Acela never goes above 125 anyway.
You can use your personal anecdotes about the Night Owl as "proof" of a trend, but other posters can't use theirs?
You’re making a false equivalency. There’s a difference between using an anecdote to make a worldwide claim, and using an anecdote as a single data point against a worldwide claim (therefore revealing the issue with the claim in the first place). In this case, it was a question of usage and purpose behind an anecdote, not simply using one per say.
A train I take twice a month and often look up the numbers on does provide me some hard data. I frequently look up it’s load factor. His proof for his original claim was a round about single story not suggesting a trend.
But yes, I suppose it’s a little unfair of me.
Last edited:
