Learned this very well on my cross-country bicycle rides - six foot off the ground and twenty miles an hour is a much better way to see the country than seventy-five miles per hour, and from a pretty much non-representative corridor (the fenced off freeway). Also have come to appreciate the twenty foot up view from the trains - noticeably better than one third that... though such can be deceiving in terms of judging train speed.
non-fiscal reasons why Amtrak has its share of enemies
- Thread starter NE933
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
- Status
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
How do you get a 20 foot up view from a train? There is no passenger train in this country that is taller than about 16 foot, with the top floor being around 9 feet up from the rail top.
Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum
Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum
;-) ON
Didn't you know that Amtrak has adopted the Indian Bus seating paradigm - the best seats are on top?
Sorry for my inexactitude... whatever eyeball height is upstairs in coach + the raised rail height over the ambient... what does that in fact work out to be? ... but it's like looking out a 2nd story window vs the ground floor.... much preferred.
;-) OFF
neroden
Engineer
This is a good discussion. I'm going to introduce an idea from D.P. Lubic, who posts at some other sites I visit: there's a generational thing going on.
People older than a certain age, who grew up taking trains before the 1950s decline in train service, often remember "good trains" fairly fondly. (These people are dying off.) To them, trains may be "cool" for this reason.
People younger than a certain age generally think of driving as a dreary slog through congestion and an expensive use of gasoline (this is, approximately, anyone who grew up in the late 1970s or later). To us, trains can be "cool" because they're an escape from driving.
People younger than a certain age don't remember when flying was nice, and only remember the demeaning version. (Not quite sure what this age is, but anyone born after 2001 for sure.) To them, trains can be "cool" because they're an escape from flying.
By contrast, people in particular age brackets were often caught up in the "romance of driving" (the 1920s or 1950s car-crazy periods) or the "romance of flying" (the 1950s air-crazy period). To people in this age bracket, trains are uncool because cars and airplanes are cool. The 1950s generation -- the baby boom -- is the age bracket where you're most likely to find dopes who mumble about "19th century technology" (though automobiles are also 19th century technology). Trains are a particularly hard sell to them. Although the fans of air travel as it existed in the 1950s may have become disenchanted with it due to the post-2001 demeaning abusiveness of the whole process.
As for buses, I think they were only cool for short periods in the 1930s and 1950s (there's the 1950s again!), though they may slowly be enjoying a resurgence.
For people who aren't in the "1950s" age bracket, there's usually great interest in and hunger for train service -- but due to the deteriorated state of service in this country, it's often impractical for them to take trains in large parts of the country (due to lack of routes, lack of frequencies, slow speeds, high prices, and most of all poor on-time-performance). But train service is still an aspirational interest of theirs. Outside the 1950s age bracket, I find that people who dislike Amtrak are mostly complaining about OTP or poor service -- *they still want long-distance train service*.
People older than a certain age, who grew up taking trains before the 1950s decline in train service, often remember "good trains" fairly fondly. (These people are dying off.) To them, trains may be "cool" for this reason.
People younger than a certain age generally think of driving as a dreary slog through congestion and an expensive use of gasoline (this is, approximately, anyone who grew up in the late 1970s or later). To us, trains can be "cool" because they're an escape from driving.
People younger than a certain age don't remember when flying was nice, and only remember the demeaning version. (Not quite sure what this age is, but anyone born after 2001 for sure.) To them, trains can be "cool" because they're an escape from flying.
By contrast, people in particular age brackets were often caught up in the "romance of driving" (the 1920s or 1950s car-crazy periods) or the "romance of flying" (the 1950s air-crazy period). To people in this age bracket, trains are uncool because cars and airplanes are cool. The 1950s generation -- the baby boom -- is the age bracket where you're most likely to find dopes who mumble about "19th century technology" (though automobiles are also 19th century technology). Trains are a particularly hard sell to them. Although the fans of air travel as it existed in the 1950s may have become disenchanted with it due to the post-2001 demeaning abusiveness of the whole process.
As for buses, I think they were only cool for short periods in the 1930s and 1950s (there's the 1950s again!), though they may slowly be enjoying a resurgence.
For people who aren't in the "1950s" age bracket, there's usually great interest in and hunger for train service -- but due to the deteriorated state of service in this country, it's often impractical for them to take trains in large parts of the country (due to lack of routes, lack of frequencies, slow speeds, high prices, and most of all poor on-time-performance). But train service is still an aspirational interest of theirs. Outside the 1950s age bracket, I find that people who dislike Amtrak are mostly complaining about OTP or poor service -- *they still want long-distance train service*.
Neroden - to follow up: one point I've notice over the last couple of years, is the proportion of millennials has been increasing... this last trip my wife and myself were clearly the old farts of those dozen or so seats around us - the couple behind us were both 19 (one was going to have a 20th birthday the next day); other than that everyone else was late 20s or early 30s. The gent in front of us said that he was feeling that he should have his snailmail address forwarded to Amtrak in the was spending a third of his life of late on Amtrak. Well ahead of us was the 70-something gent that died. Beyond that (luckily for only Hastings to LNK) was a early 40s meth-head with serious attitude problems + lost in his phone games teenager. Seemed that most everyone was on the CZ to take time off, or because it got them to where they wanted to go cheaper than the flying cattlecar.
Silver Star rider
Service Attendant
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2010
- Messages
- 236
Riding on your bicycle is almost like driving a car, your attention should be on the road, not looking at the scenery. Accidents happen that way
Bruce-SSR
What Amtrak train do you take from your home in NJ to your vacation in the Pocono's?
Just kiddin'....I know you meant when you go x-country...
N
Newbie_Emily
Guest
IMHO, Amtraks' worst enemy is Amtrak itself.
MikefromCrete
Engineer
Over the years I've run into a lot of WWII vets who disliked rail travel because of their bad experiences on troop trains. So, there's all kinds of reasons why people pick their method of transportation. But not everybody is going to love every type of transportation. Witness all the anti-airplane types that congregate here. It's not our job as riders to convert others to rail travel.
We have gotten several couples to ride the rails. Gotten AGR bonus referral points from 4 couples! Not really sure if we will be touting the "romance of the rails" too much anymore due to all the cutbacks, though. It is hard enough to "sell" Amtrak as is, with the crazy schedules from a lot of places, and the slow trek, and poor OTP, and the cutbacks removed some of the "extra enticements" we often used to convince folks to give it a try.. But to those of a "certain age" who have the extra time and disposable $$$$ it works. Personally, I don't give a rat's behind about wifi, my Ipad is 4G capable, and most folks use smart (aleck) phones anyhoo......, but if this is an amenity, so be it (I do not want to open up that can o worms again!), but, IMHO, Amtrak has many other more pressing problems than wifi to spend precious few $$$ on.
On all trips we have made, the demographics have been very mixed, older, younger, male, female, ethnically diverse, etc. so I do not see that as a major impediment.
Most new possibility people we speak to about it are more concerned about seat width, security theater, comfort and schedule (OTP), in that order. The main things that I've heard from those we convinced to try Amtrak that is negative are: Rude employees, OTP, and clean (dirty/nasty) restrooms, in that order. IMHO, if Amtrak improved these three things, repeat business would increase.
On all trips we have made, the demographics have been very mixed, older, younger, male, female, ethnically diverse, etc. so I do not see that as a major impediment.
Most new possibility people we speak to about it are more concerned about seat width, security theater, comfort and schedule (OTP), in that order. The main things that I've heard from those we convinced to try Amtrak that is negative are: Rude employees, OTP, and clean (dirty/nasty) restrooms, in that order. IMHO, if Amtrak improved these three things, repeat business would increase.
Last edited by a moderator:
Related, but not the same.. cars tend to be on freeways with high traffic density, and where "stuff" happens at 100 ft/sec rates... cross country bike rides tend to be on back roads, where one might see a dozen cars per day, up through a really busy day with that many cars in fifteen minutes, and "stuff" happens at 30 ft/sec rates. ... but also, just situation awareness leads to seeing what's around one; plus the ability to stop just about anywhere and look, listen, smell. ... haven't done a transcontinental since the 80's, but is a very much closer to the ground way to see the world [in years gone by have also seen Europe, Australia and Japan that way... but they're so small in comparison: one is almost done as soon as one gets started, eg, Vancouver BC to StJohns NFL took 15 weeks; around Europe was less than a month]. ... of late been doing even slower seeing the land: the PCT, 2655 miles, Apr15->Sept29... not a lot of traffic to worry about there ;-)Riding on your bicycle is almost like driving a car, your attention should be on the road, not looking at the scenery. Accidents happen that way
Bruce-SSR
fillyjonk
OBS Chief
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2011
- Messages
- 583
IMHO, plane travel stopped being "fun" some time in the late 80s/early 90s. Of course, that also might coincide with my being an older adolescent/young adult and reaching the point where I had to be responsible for all my stuff AND also beginning to notice the folks who don't give a dang and tend to ruin stuff for the rest of us.
For me, a big attraction of the train is that it is NOT ME DRIVING. I am single and none of my friends are either people I'd want to take a long distance trip with, or the people I would, their schedules don't coincide with mine so we can't. So if I go somewhere over night or longer, I am almost always the sole driver, which is a drag - you don't get to enjoy scenery, you have to be so careful not to be tired, if you have some problem it's a BIG problem because it's just you.
I am also just old enough to remember some of the automotive problems of the 70s (was a tiny child during the era of gas lines).
I will say the one challenge for me with train travel, if I go somewhere that is either not staying with friends/family or is not in a larger city, transportation once I get off the train can be a challenge. You wind up either having to rent a car, use taxis a lot, or figure out somewhere to go where you can mostly walk. That may be one drawback for a lot of people....though then again, lots of people fly, and you have that same issue with flying.
I've heard a few people of a more conservative bent bash the train because it's "gummint funded" The odd thing is, most of the more conservative folk in my family have no problems with Amtrak at all...it's mostly commentators looking to gin up discussion that I hear going after Amtrak.
I will say the two BIG things that I would be a lot happier if Amtrak could change them would be:
1. On time performance. When I'm on vacation, I'm on vacation, so if the train's a few hours late it's not a big fat hairy deal, but it would be nicer if we could count on the trains, even the LD trains., mostly running close to on time rather than hours late.
2. Consistency of customer service. Most of the time I'm fairly happy with it but once in a while you get that surly crew in the diner, or you get the car attendant who is AWOL or the conductor who snaps at pax who ask a question.
I think for "new" riders those are two big things that would turn them off and make them not come back.
For me, a big attraction of the train is that it is NOT ME DRIVING. I am single and none of my friends are either people I'd want to take a long distance trip with, or the people I would, their schedules don't coincide with mine so we can't. So if I go somewhere over night or longer, I am almost always the sole driver, which is a drag - you don't get to enjoy scenery, you have to be so careful not to be tired, if you have some problem it's a BIG problem because it's just you.
I am also just old enough to remember some of the automotive problems of the 70s (was a tiny child during the era of gas lines).
I will say the one challenge for me with train travel, if I go somewhere that is either not staying with friends/family or is not in a larger city, transportation once I get off the train can be a challenge. You wind up either having to rent a car, use taxis a lot, or figure out somewhere to go where you can mostly walk. That may be one drawback for a lot of people....though then again, lots of people fly, and you have that same issue with flying.
I've heard a few people of a more conservative bent bash the train because it's "gummint funded" The odd thing is, most of the more conservative folk in my family have no problems with Amtrak at all...it's mostly commentators looking to gin up discussion that I hear going after Amtrak.
I will say the two BIG things that I would be a lot happier if Amtrak could change them would be:
1. On time performance. When I'm on vacation, I'm on vacation, so if the train's a few hours late it's not a big fat hairy deal, but it would be nicer if we could count on the trains, even the LD trains., mostly running close to on time rather than hours late.
2. Consistency of customer service. Most of the time I'm fairly happy with it but once in a while you get that surly crew in the diner, or you get the car attendant who is AWOL or the conductor who snaps at pax who ask a question.
I think for "new" riders those are two big things that would turn them off and make them not come back.
WoodyinNYC
Conductor
I have my handy pocket can-opener right here!
Right now Wi-Fi is available on all Acelas, NE Regionals, and
the state-supported corridor trains. That good.
Wi-Fi is UNavailable on long distance trains. Not so good.
I understand that adding uninterrupted Wi-Fi service across
the plains, mountains, and deserts of the transcontinental trains
would be extremely costly. I'm willing to wait a while to start
spending for that.
But it's absurd that I get free Wi-Fi if I take a Regional from
NYC to Lynchburg or to Richmond, but no service at all if
I take the Crescent to Lynchburg, or the Silvers, the Palmetto,
or the Carolinian to Richmond.
Another reason why Amtrak needs hundreds of new coaches etc
for the single-level trains. Those routes would not require much
new cellular infrastructure; we need modern train cars able to
receive and distribute the signals.
Then for the farther sections of those LD routes, again, I'm not for
spending big money on cellular infrastructure just yet. But if we had
modern coaches receiving the cellular signals where available,
riders would have a few minutes at each stop along the way to
check e-mails or even dash off a reply.
This station-stop Wi-Fi would not be much, but it would be much much
more than LD passengers get today. And since we need new coaches etc,
the need for more Wi-Fi is just another reason to hurry to get them.
One of the other reasons not to invest heavily (on Amtrak's part) in connectivity is: the state of the art is evolving too rapidly, ie, whatever they invest in today, will be out of date too soon after (and essentially money wasted)... what I'm seeing on the CZ, CS, SWC is people using their cellphones to setup hotspots, which they then use for their laptops and tablets... maybe this is a problem that Amtrak is better not solving, in that it will solve itself and at no cost to them, ie, consumer connectivity will be the ultimate answer.
neroden
Engineer
Your experience matches mine, except that OTP is higher on the list of concerns among everyone I've talked do (both new possibility and convinced-to-try), and restrooms are less of a concern. (Probably this last is due to where I am; the restroom problems are most severe on Chicago-West Coast trains, and not so bad on the single-overnights.)
Yeah. The one difference is that nearly all airports have car rental places. Train stations should have rental cars at them, and all too often they don't. It's been difficult to get rental cars at train stations. Amtrak should make an aggressive effort to recruit rental car agencies to provide 7-day-a-week service during Amtrak calling hours at stations.
MikefromCrete
Engineer
Having rent-a-car services at stations served by one train in each direction (or less) per day seems hardly profitable or possible. On busy corridor routes, however, it should be a given.
I think we've all run into this... personally have found that by using expedia and picking up the car at an airport, one can get quite affordable transportation, eg, a Matrix for $22/day unlimited miles or Corolla for $23/day likewise unlimited miles, picked up at the OMA airport... but conversely, as the airport gets smaller, the prices skyrocket [LNK 45 miles away when I checked was more than double that]. ... ended up with the Corolla this last time, and in five days put more than 1000 miles on it seeing southern MN, lots of Iowa, northern Missouri and eastern KS... was a pleasant car, got reasonable mileage (something like 38mpg integrated over the big loop) and for the five days was less in cost than the food bill on the CZ getting to OMA.
D.P. Roberts
Conductor
I agree completely. Walking is the best way to really see the scenery you're passing through. Biking isn't bad either, but second to walking. Then trains, then cars, then planes.
I find that outside of a few large cities, most people don't walk anywhere. I live in a small town and walk long distances almost every day. I own a car, but I choose to walk. Yet well-meaning people often stop to ask if I need a ride, assuming that my car must have broken down somewhere.
Trains will probably never really compete with flying - flying will always be faster, and probably cheaper. However, trains CAN be as fast (or faster) than cars. As more and more people live in pedestrian-friendly cities, the percentage of people who don't drive keeps going up. If Amtrak really wants to succeed, it needs to go after the urban, non-car-owning demographic.
I too am noticing a more diverse ridership on LD Trains in the past few years as pertains to age both in Coach and Sleepers! The new cheapie buses are hurting Amtrak on some Intermediate Routes ( ie Bolt, Mega Bus and even Greyhound) since Amtrak is much more expensive and Slower away from the Corridor Routes!
The biggest complaint I've heard from first time riders that I've talked with is Poor OTP,Shortage of Sleeping Car Space,Lack of Connectivity and 3day a week schedules ( Card and Sunset)and the Cost for Sleepers which can be Very High depending on the Supply and demand!
The biggest complaint I've heard from first time riders that I've talked with is Poor OTP,Shortage of Sleeping Car Space,Lack of Connectivity and 3day a week schedules ( Card and Sunset)and the Cost for Sleepers which can be Very High depending on the Supply and demand!
Last edited by a moderator:
neroden
Engineer
On the contrary, it's both possible and profitable, at least in the big cities. The key reason is that these major big city stations are in downtowns -- and there are *already* successful downtown rental car locations in most of these cities, often quite close. The major clientele would be expected to be locals.
The *only* problems for Amtrak passengers is that these places are often closed on weekends, or Sundays, or evenings, or whatever; or they are just a bit too far away from the Amtrak station without shuttle service. Efforts should be made to entice car rental places which are already planning to locate downtown to (a) colocate with the train station, and (b) make it possible for people coming in by train to pick up and return cars (either by being open during those hours or by dropping off keys with an Amtrak agent).
It's really desirable to make this work even at places with only two trains a day, but with 80 people getting off each train, like Minneapolis-St. Paul. (And honestly, they have enough parking spaces to set up a rental car agency right there.)
Some stations have made arrangements to make this work, others haven't. But all the downtown big city stations, the ones with on-and-offs over 100K/year, *should* try to have such arrangements.
Last edited by a moderator:
tricia
Conductor
Yes! This! All of it! :hi:
And this too: Would it be too much to hope that Amtrak's website would link to, or at least indicate, which rental companies are willing to service Amtrak passengers at which stations? As it is, I (and I'm sure many other Amtrak passengers) spend WAY too much time and effort figuring out whether/if there's any car rental available at stations I'd like to use.
neroden
Engineer
True under most circumstances, but there's three important caveats:
(1) Flying is completely hopeless over sufficiently short distances (unless you fly by private plane), because there's a very large minimum time involved: an hour's overhead for sure, and probably a long trip to the airport at both ends. Flying is a bad option from Ithaca, NY to Philadelphia, PA, for example; the overhead involved in airports and plane delays means that driving is usually faster than flying. Basically anywhere where driving is under 4 hours, flying may end up being slower than driving. This is one reason why "corridor" train routes can be so successful.
(2) In some places, there are fewer and fewer flights which are more and more expensive; so flying is becoming a non-option. Trains can often still reach these areas if they happen to be on the way from somewhere to somewhere else. I'm having some trouble thinking of examples of this; they mostly fall into categories #1 and #3 as well.
(3) Closely related to #1 and #2, flights may go the wrong direction due to the hub system. This can make for bizarrely long trips by plane. If a train happens to take a more direct route, it can be much faster than flying. The complete absence of hub airports in Ohio, upstate NY, and western PA makes these areas chock-full of potential routes where rail is quicker than flying.vb Unfortunately very little has been done in the way of passenger rail development, due to obstructionism by Ohio government and obstructionism by CSX.
Yes, certainly. I would actually pay special attention to the markets where trains can be faster than flying (due to the decline in airline service) but in all those markets, in order to be successful, trains must also be faster than cars.
seat38a
Engineer
For the short corridor routes in California, lack of knowledge seems to be the big problem. Many people are surprised and shocked that I took the train to "so and so." Amtrak California is doing a lot of TV advertisement these days, but it is something generic and really lacks explaining the cities and places the train can take them. When it comes to LD trains, most of the people that I know see it as a "experience" not a mode of transportation. It is something you do if you got time and some extra cash to burn but not something you do if your in a hurry or on fixed time.
Silver Star rider
Service Attendant
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2010
- Messages
- 236
I personally hire a train that goes to Stroudsburg Station. Takes a little bit of convincing the engineer to take a certain track.....What Amtrak train do you take from your home in NJ to your vacation in the Pocono's?
Just kiddin'....I know you meant when you go x-country...
Bruce-SSR
Better take a look at a current railroad map....the Lackawanna Cutoff is long gone....to go from NJ to the Pocono's woould take a long, convoluted route...I personally hire a train that goes to Stroudsburg Station. Takes a little bit of convincing the engineer to take a certain track.....What Amtrak train do you take from your home in NJ to your vacation in the Pocono's?
Just kiddin'....I know you meant when you go x-country...
Bruce-SSR
- Status
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
-
B-29 Superfortress WWII bomber set to land in the Lehigh Valley- Latest: Night Ranger
-
-
