Last week was probably our last LD trip on Amtrak

[neroden]

Heh!

This is the US military:

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-pentagon-literally-tossed-millions-of-dollars-into-the-trash-ce32489184a6#.bah8wjwh2

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-pentagon-waste-specialreport-idUSBRE9AH0LQ20131118

From the Reuters report, it becomes clear that we could literally pull $5 billion a year out of the *accounting fraud* committed by the Pentagon.

 

[Paul CHI]

As restaurant owners learn quickly, it takes very little to create a situation in which first time clients vow never to return. We talked friends into joining us for a first trip on the SWC from CHI to ABQ several years ago. We used roomettes; ours was fine, but they had a woman across the aisle who refused to close her door (wanted "air") and spent most of the trip yelling on her cell phone. We've suggested another trip, but the friends are absolutely not interested.

My wife and I took a Vancouver - Toronto trip on Via in January of 2014 and found it so far above Amtrak in all respects that we have not tried an Amtrak trip since then. Now that the nice memories are fading, we might try it again, but the comments above about inconsistent service definitely revive memories of previous Amtrak trips - primarily in the dining car for us. We tend to be self-sufficient in the roomette.

 

[neroden]

As restaurant owners learn quickly, it takes very little to create a situation in which first time clients vow never to return.

True. It's particularly acute with restaurants, since there are always *so many* alternatives.

It cuts both ways on transportation. I've had multiple experiences on airlines which caused me to swear off US airline travel outside of genuine emergencies. I've also sworn off three different bus lines. Unlike those situations, Amtrak has never threatened my physical safety, so Amtrak wins my patronage.

 

[Alexandria Nick]

Yes, it DOES work that way. The Navy is being given ships it doesn't even WANT. There's a graveyard of brand new tanks for the Army which it doesn't want.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/9/lawmakers-force-pentagon-to-buy-tanks-keep-ships-a/?page=all

Even if the Navy does want the supercarriers... they're militarily useless! Garbage. Tens of billions of dollars in floating coffins. The Navy still thinks it's fighting the 1945 war.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-future-of-the-us-navy-2015-10

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-u-s-navy-s-big-mistake-building-tons-of-supercarriers-79cb42029b8#.2ec6bcs8j

Military history and strategy is a hobby of mine, which I don't usually talk about. The reason I don't usually talk about it is that it's obvious to any student of the field that the US has been bungling continuously since the 1950s -- and people don't want to hear about it.

The military budget is consuming roughly $1 trillion / year, and it seems to be completely wasted, since every military intervention the US has staged since the end of the Kosovo campaign has *worsened* our geopolitical position. It seems to me that the military isn't being operated for national defense -- it's being operated for some other purpose. Some combination of pork barrel spending and grifting by military contractors, perhaps.

$1 trillion per year is $1,000 billion per year. We could cut 1% off of it -- and the waste is obviously much larger than that -- and have $10 billion a year.

I'm not arguing anything about the utility of a defense system. I'm talking about the straight budgeting of the system. All I'm saying is its not like they cut a check for $12 billion and put "aircraft carrier" down on the "for" line. You couldn't cancel the the Ford to get "three years" of $4 billion for anything because the Ford doesn't have that money in the first place.

It requires a much more elaborate plan than just "Cancel X, Get Money for Y."

 

[WoodyinNYC]

Yes, it DOES work that way. The Navy is being given ships it doesn't even WANT. There's a graveyard of brand new tanks for the Army which it doesn't want.

I'm not arguing anything about the utility of a defense system. I'm talking about the straight budgeting of the system. All I'm saying is its not like they cut a check for $12 billion and put "aircraft carrier" down on the "for" line. You couldn't cancel the the Ford to get "three years" of $4 billion for anything because the Ford doesn't have that money in the first place.

It requires a much more elaborate plan than just "Cancel X, Get Money for Y."

My plan will remain refreshingly simple. Start with the Pentagon Budget -- Obama is asking for $622 Billion, not counting Veterans' costs, foreign aid to foreign militaries, spooks, etc. -- and reduce it by $5 Billion a year. If the right people in power want it to be cut, it could be cut, and the money spent on trains.

That would mean CongressCritters would have to stop mandating the purchase of unneeded war materiel made in their home districts. So my plan might be impossible to execute.

But my plan does demonstrate that there is plenty of money to be spent on whatever citizens want it to be spent on. The public likes Amtrak . . . but sadly, a dark shadow falls between what the public wants and what the war profiteers want.

 

[StriderGDM]

Yes, it DOES work that way. The Navy is being given ships it doesn't even WANT. There's a graveyard of brand new tanks for the Army which it doesn't want.

I'm not arguing anything about the utility of a defense system. I'm talking about the straight budgeting of the system. All I'm saying is its not like they cut a check for $12 billion and put "aircraft carrier" down on the "for" line. You couldn't cancel the the Ford to get "three years" of $4 billion for anything because the Ford doesn't have that money in the first place.

It requires a much more elaborate plan than just "Cancel X, Get Money for Y."

My plan will remain refreshingly simple. Start with the Pentagon Budget -- Obama is asking for $622 Billion, not counting Veterans' costs, foreign aid to foreign militaries, spooks, etc. -- and reduce it by $5 Billion a year. If the right people in power want it to be cut, it could be cut, and the money spent on trains.

That would mean CongressCritters would have to stop mandating the purchase of unneeded war materiel made in their home districts. So my plan might be impossible to execute.

But my plan does demonstrate that there is plenty of money to be spent on whatever citizens want it to be spent on. The public likes Amtrak . . . but sadly, a dark shadow falls between what the public wants and what the war profiteers want.

OMG WoodyinNYC do you want us all to die? Why do you hate America? We have to spend more than all other nations combined on defense lest something bad will happen to us! I mean the threat from terrorism is so great that last year more people were killed by toddlers with guns than terrorists!

How will we stop ISIS if we don't modernize our nuclear triad?

Honestly, while I agree with you, it's political suicide for politicians to try to reign in defense spending.

And neroden, I have to agere, we're making so many mistakes with our military planning. A key example is every time they try to kill the A-10, they find lo and behold that a low and slow, rugged, cheap tank killer works so much better than say a F-35. But damn the F-35 is sexier.

Want to look into how much money is being spent, I'd start with the F-35.

 

[willem]

I'm something of a babe in the woods when it comes to politics, but I'll speculate that the rich people who contribute to campaigns own stock in companies that build guns and delivery systems rather than in companies that build railroad car components.

 

[neroden]

All I'm saying is its not like they cut a check for $12 billion and put "aircraft carrier" down on the "for" line.

No, indeed, it's actually much worse than that. At the DOD they write checks and issue electronic transfers to various people. They then later go "Huh, we have no idea where that money went" (maybe it was simply stolen) and make up fake accounting entries called "plugs" -- which they then sign off on, knowing that they're committing fraud -- in order to get the Treasury to reimburse their account...Did you read the Reuters article? There's a reason they can't pass an audit. It's frankly outrageous that $1 trillion a year is being given to an organization which can't pass an audit and routinely engages in accounting fraud in order to get reimbursed. It's *crazy*.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

All I'm saying is its not like they cut a check for $12 billion and put "aircraft carrier" down on the "for" line.

No, indeed, it's actually much worse than that. At the DOD they write checks and issue electronic transfers to various people. They then later go "Huh, we have no idea where that money went" (maybe it was simply stolen) and make up fake accounting entries called "plugs" -- which they then sign off on, knowing that they're committing fraud -- in order to get the Treasury to reimburse their account...Did you read the Reuters article? There's a reason they can't pass an audit. It's frankly outrageous that $1 trillion a year is being given to an organization which can't pass an audit and routinely engages in accounting fraud in order to get reimbursed. It's *crazy*.

^ LIKE ^

 

[Bob Dylan]

Give one of my early sings a listen, especially as sung by BONO of U-2:

It's called "Masters of War".

 

[andersone]

And Uncle Ike Sang

"Beware the military industrial complex"

we never learned the second verse

 

[tricia]

That would mean CongressCritters would have to stop mandating the purchase of unneeded war materiel made in their home districts. So my plan might be impossible to execute.

But my plan does demonstrate that there is plenty of money to be spent on whatever citizens want it to be spent on. The public likes Amtrak . . . but sadly, a dark shadow falls between what the public wants and what the war profiteers want.

A modest proposal: Might manufacture and provision of Amtrak equipment and supplies be arranged to fall into as many Congressional districts as possible? To maximize the number of Congress members who have Amtrak-related contracts in their home districts.

 

[willem]

A modest proposal: Might manufacture and provision of Amtrak equipment and supplies be arranged to fall into as many Congressional districts as possible? To maximize the number of Congress members who have Amtrak-related contracts in their home districts.

I don't doubt that such a strategy would improve the chances of getting new equipment, but it would really surprise me if it did not result in higher prices.

It reminds me of the story of some weapons system (an aircraft, I believe) that one proponent said was invulnerable to enemy action. He meant enemies in the US, because every house district provided at least one component. No word on how it fared in war.

I recognize the advantage of having new equipment at a premium over what it should cost over having no new equipment at all.

 

[JoeBas]

We just need to start making the argument that Amtrak is vital to National Defense, and get it rolled in under the Defense Department.

Troop Trains! Post-9/11 transport! Robust terror-proof infrastructure! Murica!!!

 

[StriderGDM]

That would mean CongressCritters would have to stop mandating the purchase of unneeded war materiel made in their home districts. So my plan might be impossible to execute.

But my plan does demonstrate that there is plenty of money to be spent on whatever citizens want it to be spent on. The public likes Amtrak . . . but sadly, a dark shadow falls between what the public wants and what the war profiteers want.

A modest proposal: Might manufacture and provision of Amtrak equipment and supplies be arranged to fall into as many Congressional districts as possible? To maximize the number of Congress members who have Amtrak-related contracts in their home districts.

You realize this already happens and Amtrak makes a point in its reports to Congress of how many jobs it's responsible for in each district.

And it's really the only reason Amtrak survives. The NEC needs it, but the states there can't get the votes without supporting the LD network.

It's all politics.

 

[andersone]

and all politics are local

 

[Jen G]

The title of this thread is about the OP's last long distance trip. I have a great trip planned for next month. LAX to FTL in a roomette..actually ELP to FTL and coach from LAX to ELP. This will probably be my last LD trip in a sleeper for quite some time. Reason is because I got this trip on points using the old system. 20,000 points for a two zone roomette. I took the longest way possible. Under AGR 2.0 there is no way I can get enough points for another big trip. I relied on that 100 minimum to achieve points quickly. Being semi retired with limited funds, there is no way I can afford sleeper prices.

I've taken many cross country LD trips over the last twenty five years. Most of these trips were just to take the train. I've always considered the train to BE the vacation. My last several trips in sleepers was with my wife and I always ended up taking the upper bunk. I feel claustrophobic up there and last time I felt dizzy. It was not a pleasant experience. Another problem is having to use the bathroom. It is quite an ordeal just attempting to get up and go. This time around I'm going alone and I'll be quite content having my bottom bunk back and spending four nights in a roomette.

The train ride is always an adventure. If i don't sleep all through the night, thats fine. I love listening to the sound of the train,and the wonderful feeling of being in a moving hotel.I go to all the meals and I have no complaints about the comfort of the mattress. Being this will be my last big trip on points, I wanted to go out with a bang. I've always taken each trip with a great sense of adventure and whatever minor obstacle I encounter, I can always overcome it.

Yeah,this is my last long distance sleeper trip. Unlike the original poster, it's because of the devaluation of AGR, not because I'm unhappy with the service.

Benale,

I have 2383 points currently...I wont be using them. Since I no longer have the guest rewards credit card, the points will eventually expire. I'm not sure I'm allowed to do this, but if you want the points, I'd be happy to gift them to you! It's not much but maybe all hope is not gone for another Amtrak trip for you and your wife!

Your post reminded me of how magical train travel is!

JenG

JenG

 

[TylerP42]

Quote:

“the sleeper bunks are fairly uncomfortable ... also too short and narrow for me to stretch out”

Just speaking for myself, I'm a BIG guy at 6' 2". The roomette 'berth' for me was large enough for me to lay full length,

and wide enough for me to flip over from side to side (not roll over).

I see on the Amtrak website that the length of the lower ‘bunk’ is 6' 6“ and the upper is 6' 2“.

They are narrow, so you can’t spread out. But then, you are riding on a train.

https://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=AM_Accommodation_C&pagename=am%2FLayout&cid=1241210576173

I actually commented several times to friends I was visiting in San Diego how impressed I was with comfort of the roomette bunk bed.

Again, just my experience and opinion.

The beds are pretty big for me... Then again, I'm 5'4".

 

[chakk]

Best train bed I've ever slept on by far was a section on VIA's Canadian.

Extra thick and much wider than Amtrak. Truly great for sleeping -- 4 nights from Vancouver to Toronto

 

[Bob Dylan]

Best train bed I've ever slept on by far was a section on VIA's Canadian.

Extra thick and much wider than Amtrak. Truly great for sleeping -- 4 nights from Vancouver to Toronto

This!

 

[tricia]

Best train bed I've ever slept on by far was a section on VIA's Canadian.

Extra thick and much wider than Amtrak. Truly great for sleeping -- 4 nights from Vancouver to Toronto

This!

Yes! Even the upper berth of VIA's cabin for two is luxuriously comfortable.

 

[Walt]

But the second issue is likely the biggest one - the regimented dining car schedule, and the officious and surly DCA who enforces it. We don't eat three big meals a day on a strict timetable, and, being retired, we sure as hell don't get up at 6:00am just so we don't miss the breakfast service. By day two we feel bloated and lethargic, and no amount of walking the length of the train at service and crew-change stops mitigates it. Uncomfortable, again. I know we can't change the dining car management culture, but, rather, if the sleeping car passenger had the option of using their pre-paid meal allowance in the lounge car for lighter meals on their schedule, not the DCA's, I'm sure we would have a much more enjoyable experience. Or, offer discounted sleeping accommodations without meals (but that would break their system, too).

Sounds pretty similar to a cruise. You try to eat three big meals a day, because, well, you paid for them in your fare. There are options, like having "room service" for breakfast, if getting up at 6:00am and going to the MDR, isn't your thing (to confess, I am a morning person even when on vacation). Of course, "room service" costs you the tip. If you skip breakfast completely (sleep in?), there is always self-serve coffee.

Cruises, at last use to, have regimented evening dinner times. There was a 6:00pm seating, or a 8:00pm seating, and if you're late with your request, you get one assigned to you.

 

[loconut2b]

As an inexperienced Amtrak rider (previously only been on CONO from Memphis to NO several years ago), we are taking all these comments with a grain of salt. We do this because we know everybody's experiences are different as well as their expectations. We are traveling in the EB to Seattle from Chicago in June. We have a roomette (a first). While in Seattle we are going on a cruise to Alaska and then flying back home. While the cruise is something to look forward to, I am most excited about the train trip! We live in an area where there isn't any trains (closest depot for Amtrak is 2-3 hours away) so we are making this trip as part of our bucket list. We plan on eating in the diner car for all meals so we can have the experience. We won't care if we are full. We may stay up all night just wandering the train. We won't care if the beds are too hard. We are just going to enjoy the trip! As a previous poster said "the train trip is our vacation!" We are definitely getting some good information from this site. We will use some of the suggestions.

 

[crescent-zephyr]

Best train bed I've ever slept on by far was a section on VIA's Canadian.

Extra thick and much wider than Amtrak. Truly great for sleeping -- 4 nights from Vancouver to Toronto

Agreed. I've only had the narrow Roomette on VIA (same dimensions as Amtrak I believe) but that was by far the most comfortable. Even more than the Iowa Pacific Pullman Bedrooms!

 

[Devil's Advocate]

As an inexperienced Amtrak rider (previously only been on CONO from Memphis to NO several years ago), we are taking all these comments with a grain of salt. We do this because we know everybody's experiences are different as well as their expectations. We are traveling in the EB to Seattle from Chicago in June. We have a roomette (a first). While in Seattle we are going on a cruise to Alaska and then flying back home. While the cruise is something to look forward to, I am most excited about the train trip! We live in an area where there isn't any trains (closest depot for Amtrak is 2-3 hours away) so we are making this trip as part of our bucket list. We plan on eating in the diner car for all meals so we can have the experience. We won't care if we are full. We may stay up all night just wandering the train. We won't care if the beds are too hard. We are just going to enjoy the trip! As a previous poster said "the train trip is our vacation!" We are definitely getting some good information from this site. We will use some of the suggestions.

You haven't done much traveling on Amtrak, and you've already given them an A+ before the trip even started, so take your comments with a grain of salt?

Got it.