Amtrak vs EuroStar

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.

TransitRider

Service Attendant
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
107
Compare these both. From what I see Northeast Regional & Acela vs EuroStar I was watching from YouTube. I must say Eurostar has more faster trains, better food, bigger and fancy seats.

Have any1 rode Eurostar before? Why can't Amtrak to have a system like Eurostar have?
 
comparing Amtrak to the Eurostar doesn't really work as the Eurostar only really runs from a couple stations on a very specific route. It would be better to compare Amtrak to say SNCF or DB.

As to having been on the Eurostar; yes I've ridden on it. Personally I found the interiors to be a bit old; but other than that a very nice ride.

As to having a similar system (I assume you mean having High Speed Rail); America has a couple High Speed Rail plans that are in the works; the biggest of the two are in California and Florida. Both are looking to use either Alstom (TGV) equipment or Japan Rail (Shinkansen) equipment. SNCF expressed interest in setting up a high speed rail network here in the states. I haven't seen anything beyond their press statement expressing interest; SNCF would use Alstom equipment.

peter

PS: here is a link to my photos of my trip on the Eurostar:

http://picasaweb.google.com/PFreeman008/Eu...feat=directlink
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Simple. The politics in Europe make it so that people are willing to spend the billions and billions needed to introduce such a train. Actually, Florida is supposedly working on high speed rail to a small extent.

Amtrak has little to do with why these things aren't running. We could use a high-speed train from Boston to Washington. What we need to do is build another pair of tunnels on either side of Penn Station (figure $15 billion for that), build a straight rail line from those tunnels to Hellsgate, and then from Hellsgate to New Haven, to New London, at the very least, including a bunch of large bridges. And then south from Trenton to Philly, etc. etc.

Figure... $150 billion for the whole thing? Remember, China does not have the BosWash population density over most of its routes, nor is their government constrained to give their citizens "fair value" for their land.

I sincerely doubt that the $70 billion they are spending on high-speed rail this year would cover the cost of building a straight piece of track 15 miles down Manhattan island without elevating over a road. Why? Land, my friend. It's valuable around here. Now, I admit the routing I'm talking about isn't THAT high land value, but it is pretty high.
 
Compare these both. From what I see Northeast Regional & Acela vs EuroStar I was watching from YouTube. I must say Eurostar has more faster trains, better food, bigger and fancy seats.
Have any1 rode Eurostar before? Why can't Amtrak to have a system like Eurostar have?
The seats are/were nicer on the Acela and I would say on most standard Amtrak trains as well, (regionals, superliners, etc). The Acela seems more roomy but the Eurostar is faster both in top and average speeds. For me a trip from Boston to NYC is not as exciting as a trip from London to Paris. Scratch that, yes it is! I just don't get to Europe as often. Much past that, the food was about equal but there was a slightly wider variety on Amtrak. For alcoholic beverages I give the Eurostar an edge. Amtrak trains appear to be more heavily staffed. It is cool to blast past other TGV trains but you can get the same effect for the most part on Amtrak.

Well we can/could have had a high speed rail system here but our nation decided it wanted cars and planes instead.

Off topic, slightly. I asked my wife which she liked better Amtrak or Via Rail in Canada. She simply said "Amtrak is better" she did not give a reason and she is not a rail fan.
 
In my experience Eurostar is faster (higher max and average speeds), quieter and smoother than the Acela, but it is also more cramped. The Acela accommodations and seats are more spacious and comfortable. The food is similar in quality but served with a little more elan on the Eurostar (comparing First Class to First Class). The wine, coffee and tea are superb in the Eurostar, but I would expect nothing less in France for the first two and England for the third. Bottom line. I immensely enjoy riding both the Acela and the Eurostar, though I do not get the feeling of high that I get riding the Eurostar while riding the Acela. But I think that has mostly to do with lengthy continuous running at 186mph. I get an even greater high riding the TGV Est at 200mph.
 
Hi,

Although I have never ridden Acela, I have ridden Eurostar many times. Eurostar trains just run between Paris/Brussels and London and are certainly "cramped", and feel more like an airliner to me. That said, for me to leave Marseilles in the south of France on a TGV, change to Eurostar in Paris, change to an intercity 125 in London and arrive home in Nottingham that same evening, is still a marvel to this "island dweller"!

It is impossible to compare the engineering marvels of getting trains over the Rockies or Sierra Nevada to whizzing along a level track in France at 170 mph.

Cheers,

Eddie :cool:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I rode Eurostar about 5 years ago. It was a nice ride by all means. It was a little cramped but it was cozy. Also we couldn't find any forward facing seats so had to ride backwards. The other thing I noticed was that it is pricey. We had a Eurail pass and we walked up and they said it would 300 pounds to go right then. We should have made a reservation before hand. The next day we went for only 150 pounds. And that was still with the supposed Eurail discount.
 
comparing Amtrak to the Eurostar doesn't really work as the Eurostar only really runs from a couple stations on a very specific route. It would be better to compare Amtrak to say SNCF or DB.
As to having been on the Eurostar; yes I've ridden on it. Personally I found the interiors to be a bit old; but other than that a very nice ride.

As to having a similar system (I assume you mean having High Speed Rail); America has a couple High Speed Rail plans that are in the works; the biggest of the two are in California and Florida. Both are looking to use either Alstom (TGV) equipment or Japan Rail (Shinkansen) equipment. SNCF expressed interest in setting up a high speed rail network here in the states. I haven't seen anything beyond their press statement expressing interest; SNCF would use Alstom equipment.

peter

PS: here is a link to my photos of my trip on the Eurostar:

http://picasaweb.google.com/PFreeman008/Eu...feat=directlink
Isn't Siemens making a concerted effort to bid? I've been hearing their ads on the radio for a couple of months touting their Spanish HSR equipment a perfect for the US HSR.
 
I haven't heard of anything from Seimens; The only Spanish HSR in the states news I've heard of is the Wisconsin Talgos.

peter
 
On the West Coast, Seimens appears to be trying to increase its presence. During a combined NARP-RailPAC meeting in Sacramento in January, Armin Kick of Seimens discussed his company's current efforts (including the light-rail assembly plant in Sacramento). He mentioned how the assembly site has expanded and could include high-speed rail cars as well.

They already have equipped the Velaro HSR system in Spain, and plan to bid on the California High Speed Rail equipment which would be assembled in a new facility at their plant.
 
Have any1 rode Eurostar before? Why can't Amtrak to have a system like Eurostar have?
I was in Europe in September 2008 traveling with my brother. We had intended to travel on the Eurostar through the Channel Tunnel, but a fire in the tunnel shut down service so we ended up taking a ferry instead. However, we got lucky on one of our TGV trips within France and got a Eurostar set being used for regular TGV service! Here's a video I shot from that train...

 
It is impossible to compare the engineering marvels of getting trains over the Rockies or Sierra Nevada to whizzing along a level track in France at 170 mph.
True, but what about the Alps? The Lötschberg Base Tunnel in Switzerland is 21.5 miles long and allows speeds of up to 155mph.
 
I think that underlines my point.. it seems easier to speed through a level tunnel, than speed along a cliff face hugging the mountain contours. I can't see your original transcontinental railroad being finished yet if they had to tunnel all the way from Denver to Sacramento..

Eddie :cool:
 
I think that underlines my point.. it seems easier to speed through a level tunnel, than speed along a cliff face hugging the mountain contours. I can't see your original transcontinental railroad being finished yet if they had to tunnel all the way from Denver to Sacramento..
Why on earth would they want to do that. Even the Swiss would not do something like that. :unsure:
 
..err, I was pointing out the problems of going under hills, rather than over them.

I do have a dry sense of humour, which seems to cause most of my problems trying to communicate on this forum...

Eddie :cool:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, the point is that Europeans do have experience with mountainous terrain. Sure, it's slower through the Alps, but it's still faster than anything in the US. You don't have to tunnel all the way from Denver to Sacramento any more than you have to tunnel all the way from Zurich to Milan.
 
I think the best answer I can give is to show you a map of your country:

usa_elevation_map.gif


I was making a light hearted comment that the US pioneer railroad builders had done a good job getting from Denver to Sacramento, given the mountains, etc.

As my 16 year old son says, "Whatever.." I am now bored with the pedantic bores on this subject ...

Ed
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, the point is that Europeans do have experience with mountainous terrain. Sure, it's slower through the Alps, but it's still faster than anything in the US. You don't have to tunnel all the way from Denver to Sacramento any more than you have to tunnel all the way from Zurich to Milan.
The highest of the original railroad tunnels in the alps are at lower elevations that downtown Denver, which is at the foot of the rockies. Regardless of teh Alps, Europe has nothign in the way of mountains compared to the western US.
 
I imagine right now the hardest thing to find in Europe is a train seat with most flights now grounded. I've already heard talk there is concern if the volcano continues to erupt hard, the effects of the ash cloud could become very widespread. At least Europe has a very intense railroad infrastructure to fall back on.
 
Well, the point is that Europeans do have experience with mountainous terrain. Sure, it's slower through the Alps, but it's still faster than anything in the US. You don't have to tunnel all the way from Denver to Sacramento any more than you have to tunnel all the way from Zurich to Milan.
The highest of the original railroad tunnels in the alps are at lower elevations that downtown Denver, which is at the foot of the Rockies. Regardless of the Alps, Europe has nothing in the way of mountains compared to the western US.
Denver is at 5000' elevation, but is still in the plains. Except for the city's "mile high" nickname and noticing how you huff and puff heading up stairs or carrying luggage, there are few clues coming into Denver from the east that would suggest you are at that elevation. The divide in Colorado is at about 12,000 to 14,000 feet, and Moffat is at just over 9000'. The climb from Denver to get over the divide on US 6 (Loveland Pass) is about 7000', and under the divide at Moffat is just over 4000'. Some of that, and most of the mountains, can be avoided by heading about 200 miles north into Wyoming. I suspect the Alps crossings are comparable to Colorado, and more severe than Wyoming.

In many respects, the challenge to building a railroad coming east across the Sierras was greater than through the Rockies. From Sacramento, basically at sea level, to Donner Pass, is a climb of over 7000', all of it in mountains. There are no ways around the mountains unless you go way to the south. Hats off to the people who laid out those routes without the benefit of USGS topo maps, LiDAR surveys, and GPS.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Denver is at 5000' elevation, but is still in the plains. Except for the city's "mile high" nickname and noticing how you huff and puff heading up stairs or carrying luggage, there are few clues coming into Denver from the east that would suggest you are at that elevation. The divide in Colorado is at about 12,000 to 14,000 feet, and Moffat is at just over 9000'. The climb from Denver to get over the divide on US 6 (Loveland Pass) is about 7000', and under the divide at Moffat is just over 4000'. Some of that, and most of the mountains, can be avoided by heading about 200 miles north into Wyoming. I suspect the Alps crossings are comparable to Colorado, and more severe than Wyoming.
A very good point. I was thinking exactly along those lines. But then again I am exceedingly jaded I suppose, since after having spent quite some time exploring the Himalayas and crossing it twice by road, almost anything else seems like an overgrown hill. :) There are serious technical reasons why no railroad has ever been attempted across the Himalayas yet, and there are only about half a dozen stable motorable roads across it in its vast stretch of over a thousand miles from the Pamirs to Namche Barwa and the Hump. But that may be about to change, what with two to three lines being discussed.

In many respects, the challenge to building a railroad coming east across the Sierras was greater than through the Rockies. From Sacramento, basically at sea level, to Donner Pass, is a climb of over 7000', all of it in mountains. There are no ways around the mountains unless you go way to the south. Hats off to the people who laid out those routes without the benefit of USGS topo maps, LiDAR surveys, and GPS.
Indeed the rise from the coastal plains to the peaks of the Sierras presents a much bigger challenge than any of the crossings of the Rockies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top