Breathtaking Thanksgiving prices on the NEC

[JoeBas]

I do think long distance routes should stay and be expanded. But it's because they serve many communities that aren't served otherwise, not because I think we need another alternative for travel from Chicago to Portland or San Francisco. Plane travel is a much more practical solution there.

Again, you're assuming what's practical and what isn't, based on your experience.

Talk to some of the folks on the LD trains... there's a LOT of folks on them who are NOT flying right now, for any reason. To these people, plane travel is not a practical solution at all. Their option is to take the train, take a bus, drive, or not go. And AMTRAK is making a decent profit off these people, who are mainly fairly well off, not as price or time sensitive for their leisure travel, and willing to pay the higher buckets that AMTRAK can charge for a train they're already running, full or empty.

 

[crescent2]

Hubby and I were among the ones who used long distance train transportation. We have flown, and could have continued to fly, ATL-New Orleans much more quickly, with more times from which to choose, and in many cases more economically than taking Amtrak, but preferred the train. One reason was we found it more pleasant, relaxing, and comfortable, but another was that it much more easily accommodated hubby's mobility limitations, even with the added difficulty of walking on a moving train. Even with some assistance, Hartsfield Airport and air travel were just never easy for us. Additionally, hubby was slightly claustrophobic, and I'm not wild about being up in the air, although it's not really a problem for me. I don't know if any of those qualify as "real" or legitimate reasons for train transportation or not.

I have no idea what the point of my post is, but take it for what it's worth. LOL

I do feel Amtrak deserves more support but that's a whole can of worms in itself.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

In my opinion:

Amtrak is too expensive over short distances to compete against interity buses, which are also usually faster and more frequent. The comfort advantage is negated when you're paying twice, thrice, or four times as much on a short trip. Many poeple still take Amtrak SDTs despite no useful advantage over buses (comfort is not significant).

Amtrak is too slow for most people to ride over long-distances, but people who have tried it out often get addicted. These people repeatedly take Amtrak. But the majority of the public have never taken trains, far less LD trains, and continue to fly and complain about flying. These "airline whiners" better take the train or shut up. You fly for speed, you don't get any other advantage!

This is why I often support expansion of LDTs compared to SDTs.

 

[jebr]

In my opinion:
Amtrak is too expensive over short distances to compete against interity buses, which are also usually faster and more frequent. The comfort advantage is negated when you're paying twice, thrice, or four times as much on a short trip. Many poeple still take Amtrak SDTs despite no useful advantage over buses (comfort is not significant).

Amtrak is too slow for most people to ride over long-distances, but people who have tried it out often get addicted. These people repeatedly take Amtrak. But the majority of the public have never taken trains, far less LD trains, and continue to fly and complain about flying. These "airline whiners" better take the train or shut up. You fly for speed, you don't get any other advantage!

This is why I often support expansion of LDTs compared to SDTs.

SDTs: Amtrak has capacity, hands down. It also has the potential to have a large speed advantage and/or serve intermediate markets. Note the Northeast Corridor as a prime example of this.

That being said, if we're not counting comfort as a useful advantage, then what is? (I guess I'm seeing this more as a "what transportation options should our country invest in" than in my personal favorite modes of travel. I haven't flown in a few years, and I would love to take the train wherever I could. But if we could get rid of the TSA debacle, since that's something not required for airline service to work, I would argue that America should keep modest investments in airport control, etc. from large city to large city, with ground feeder services to them.) Again, I have no problem with keeping (and expanding) the LDT network. However, I want to keep it and invest in it because it serves intermediate markets well, not because it offers an alternative from Chicago to Seattle.

 

[Ispolkom]

In my opinion:
Amtrak is too expensive over short distances to compete against interity buses, which are also usually faster and more frequent. The comfort advantage is negated when you're paying twice, thrice, or four times as much on a short trip. Many poeple still take Amtrak SDTs despite no useful advantage over buses (comfort is not significant).

If people are paying (and Lord knows they are) several times more to travel by train than by bus, they do find a "useful advantage" in traveling by train rather than bus, or they wouldn't pay the premium. It's always cheaper to travel from the Twin Cities to Chicago by bus (Greyhound, Megabus) than by train, but there is still enough of a market for train travel that Amtrak adds an extra coach MSP-CHI in summer and at Christmas time. Me, I don't trust #8's on-time performance, and I won't ride the bus that long (so much for "comfort is not significant"), so I usually burn some British Airways Avios on a nasty American Airlines regional jet, or some Southwest Rapid Rewards points for a much more pleasant 737 ride when I travel to Chicago. That's my preference based on my resources and my prejudices. Other people have other resources and preferences.

Just like in the original posting. I don't blame Amtrak for charging what they do for that ticket. I just won't pay it if I have an alternative, and for me a short, cheaper ride on a nasty US Airways regional jet is better than a longer, more expensive ride on a crowded Northeast regional. And the bus was right out.

 

[jebr]

In my opinion:
Amtrak is too expensive over short distances to compete against interity buses, which are also usually faster and more frequent. The comfort advantage is negated when you're paying twice, thrice, or four times as much on a short trip. Many poeple still take Amtrak SDTs despite no useful advantage over buses (comfort is not significant).

If people are paying (and Lord knows they are) several times more to travel by train than by bus, they do find a "useful advantage" in traveling by train rather than bus, or they wouldn't pay the premium. It's always cheaper to travel from the Twin Cities to Chicago by bus (Greyhound, Megabus) than by train, but there is still enough of a market for train travel that Amtrak adds an extra coach MSP-CHI in summer and at Christmas time. Me, I don't trust #8's on-time performance, and I won't ride the bus that long (so much for "comfort is not significant"), so I usually burn some British Airways Avios on a nasty American Airlines regional jet, or some Southwest Rapid Rewards points for a much more pleasant 737 ride when I travel to Chicago. That's my preference based on my resources and my prejudices. Other people have other resources and preferences.

Just like in the original posting. I don't blame Amtrak for charging what they do for that ticket. I just won't pay it if I have an alternative, and for me a short, cheaper ride on a nasty US Airways regional jet is better than a longer, more expensive ride on a crowded Northeast regional. And the bus was right out.

That's one route that I'm amazed (as a semi-local, no less) has so many people trying to ride. Maybe it's intermediate business, but I'm more than willing to put up with a equivalent-time bus ride (with way more choices for times) that's, at most, 30% of the price. Usually only 10-20% of the price. Even flights are usually cheaper and quite a bit faster.

 

[amamba]

LOL at there being a speed advantage to the bus during Rhankagiving on the NEC. One year it took me 14 hours to get to Boston from South Jersey the Sunday after thanksgiving. Never again. Just say to the NJ turnpike around the holidays v

 

[amamba]

Bah excuse typos on my phone.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

In my opinion:
Amtrak is too expensive over short distances to compete against interity buses, which are also usually faster and more frequent. The comfort advantage is negated when you're paying twice, thrice, or four times as much on a short trip. Many poeple still take Amtrak SDTs despite no useful advantage over buses (comfort is not significant).

Amtrak is too slow for most people to ride over long-distances, but people who have tried it out often get addicted. These people repeatedly take Amtrak. But the majority of the public have never taken trains, far less LD trains, and continue to fly and complain about flying. These "airline whiners" better take the train or shut up. You fly for speed, you don't get any other advantage!

This is why I often support expansion of LDTs compared to SDTs.

SDTs: Amtrak has capacity, hands down. It also has the potential to have a large speed advantage and/or serve intermediate markets. Note the Northeast Corridor as a prime example of this.

That being said, if we're not counting comfort as a useful advantage, then what is? (I guess I'm seeing this more as a "what transportation options should our country invest in" than in my personal favorite modes of travel. I haven't flown in a few years, and I would love to take the train wherever I could. But if we could get rid of the TSA debacle, since that's something not required for airline service to work, I would argue that America should keep modest investments in airport control, etc. from large city to large city, with ground feeder services to them.) Again, I have no problem with keeping (and expanding) the LDT network. However, I want to keep it and invest in it because it serves intermediate markets well, not because it offers an alternative from Chicago to Seattle.

The NEC has a speed advantage, but you gotta admit that it is the exception. On many routes, Amtrak trains are slower than Greyhounds even with stops, and sometimes the Amtrak is slower than any other alternative!

In my opinion:
Amtrak is too expensive over short distances to compete against interity buses, which are also usually faster and more frequent. The comfort advantage is negated when you're paying twice, thrice, or four times as much on a short trip. Many poeple still take Amtrak SDTs despite no useful advantage over buses (comfort is not significant).

If people are paying (and Lord knows they are) several times more to travel by train than by bus, they do find a "useful advantage" in traveling by train rather than bus, or they wouldn't pay the premium. It's always cheaper to travel from the Twin Cities to Chicago by bus (Greyhound, Megabus) than by train, but there is still enough of a market for train travel that Amtrak adds an extra coach MSP-CHI in summer and at Christmas time. Me, I don't trust #8's on-time performance, and I won't ride the bus that long (so much for "comfort is not significant"), so I usually burn some British Airways Avios on a nasty American Airlines regional jet, or some Southwest Rapid Rewards points for a much more pleasant 737 ride when I travel to Chicago. That's my preference based on my resources and my prejudices. Other people have other resources and preferences.

Just like in the original posting. I don't blame Amtrak for charging what they do for that ticket. I just won't pay it if I have an alternative, and for me a short, cheaper ride on a nasty US Airways regional jet is better than a longer, more expensive ride on a crowded Northeast regional. And the bus was right out.

I know I'm arguring for buses in a train forum, but I must points some things out:

1. MSP-CHI may be considered SD in train terms, but it is only served by an LDT, which is what I support anyway.

2. This route is considered LD by Greyhound Lines.

3. A Greyhound bus has larger seats and better OTP than almost any domestic flight. Wi-Fi, too. I would take the EB, I love that train, but if it's sold out or very expensive I would hop on the GLI any day before flying on a terrible 737!

LOL at there being a speed advantage to the bus during Rhankagiving on the NEC. One year it took me 14 hours to get to Boston from South Jersey the Sunday after thanksgiving. Never again. Just say to the NJ turnpike around the holidays v

Again, it's the NEC. The exception, not the rule.

 

[jebr]

The NEC has a speed advantage, but you gotta admit that it is the exception. On many routes, Amtrak trains are slower than Greyhounds even with stops, and sometimes the Amtrak is slower than any other alternative!

In many cases, yes, there's little time difference. But Amtrak takes 8 hours and 5 minutes, assuming full OTP, from MSP to CHI. That's as fast as Greyhound Express or Megabus, and Amtrak's putting a lot more stops in there than Megabus or Greyhound are. OMA to CHI is the same principle, though Megabus has a slight speed advantage.

And, for example, on the Hiawatha, Amtrak is much faster on a percentage basis. I'm guessing Amtrak will continue to gain advantages if congestion continues to increase.

I know I'm arguring for buses in a train forum, but I must points some things out:

1. MSP-CHI may be considered SD in train terms, but it is only served by an LDT, which is what I support anyway.

2. This route is considered LD by Greyhound Lines.

3. A Greyhound bus has larger seats and better OTP than almost any domestic flight. Wi-Fi, too. I would take the EB, I love that train, but if it's sold out or very expensive I would hop on the GLI any day before flying on a terrible 737!

1. There are proposals out for a second train on this route, which would be a SD train if that were the case.

2. ...so? While it may be "long-distance" in some respects, it's at the 400-mile mark, which isn't that terribly long.

3. I'm doubting your OTP contention. Source? Also, are airline's OTP affected by cancellations? If so, I doubt that Greyhound is beating them on OTP. Plus, I'd rather put myself on the mercy of the airlines should my flight be cancelled than be put on the mercy of Greyhound. A lot of flights offer (paid) wifi, which tends to be more reliable than bus wifi (though you are paying for it, and you can't fall back on cellular data if the wi-fi is iffy on the plane.) What's so bad about the 737, anyways? And while larger seats are nice, you're in that seat for quite a bit longer. I better be having a better seat if I'm in that seat for 8 hours with only a 20-minute stretch break (versus an hour and a half for a flight)!

Sorry, but if price was not a large consideration, the plane is going to win over the bus. Flights can be found in the $50 range from MSP to CHI fairly easily. (Southwest has a $60 sale right now for Tuesday and Wednesday flights.) If it's a business trip or time matters, I'll be taking the plane. I'll take the bus down, but I'm not trusting Greyhound anytime soon after my last failed trip.