Rail makes no sense

[craftsman]

I'm making a list of places I would like to go for vacation.

Then I select only those destinations which have good rail service & connections.

By that, I mean destinations you can get to via AMTRAK,

with one or two timely connections - timely meaning same-day connections, not overnight in an expensive city, or 6 - 8 hours in an empty rail station in a bad part of town in the middle of the night.

Even the best (from my home to Richmond, VA) takes 14 hours, requires me to spend a night sleeping in a seat, and costs $220.

Same trip in a car is an easy 7 hour drive, and uses $60 worth of gas.

If I didn't already own a car, and couldn't rent one, maybe I'd take the train (but more likely fly).

Unless they actually let you drive the train, why would anyone want to go through that hassle and expense?

 

[RRrich]

I live in St Louis and shortly I will visit my Mom who is near Albany, NY.

Both those cities have Amtrak service with an easy connection in Chicago. Several hours wait to be sure but it takes a while to eat a Giordano's pizza. So much more relaxing to take Amtrak than to drive!

On the other hand, we want to go to Atlanta from St Louis. We could take Amtrak to Chicago (way too far North) then go to DC (way too far East) and then to Atlanta. Amtrak does NOT make sense for that trip so we will drive.

Sometimes using Amtrak makes good sense, sometimes not.

No one tool fits ALL tasks

 

[Eric S]

I'm making a list of places I would like to go for vacation.

Then I select only those destinations which have good rail service & connections.

By that, I mean destinations you can get to via AMTRAK,

with one or two timely connections - timely meaning same-day connections, not overnight in an expensive city, or 6 - 8 hours in an empty rail station in a bad part of town in the middle of the night.

Even the best (from my home to Richmond, VA) takes 14 hours, requires me to spend a night sleeping in a seat, and costs $220.

Same trip in a car is an easy 7 hour drive, and uses $60 worth of gas.

If I didn't already own a car, and couldn't rent one, maybe I'd take the train (but more likely fly).

Unless they actually let you drive the train, why would anyone want to go through that hassle and expense?

So rail does not "make sense" for any of your ideal vacation sites. Would it work for any business-related trips you might make? (To Washington, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York, etc.?) Does it "make sense" for any other people living in the Richmond area, for either business or leisure? (Do other Richmond-area residents travel to Washington, New York, Charlotte, Miami, Atlanta, etc.?)

I guess I'm just not sure what sort of a post/question this is. Just an anti-rail/anti-Amtrak rant? An actual question of when/how rail travel works for people?

 

[pennyk]

Rail works for me. In the past 6 years, I have had to go to Chicago, Minneapolis, Washington DC and Atlanta for business. I took the train from Orlando for each trip, except Atlanta, when I flew. If an Atlanta trip comes up again, I would either drive or take a train.

The least expensive, quickest route is not always the one that makes the best sense for everyone. :lol:

 

[PerRock]

Its less hassle than flying. Have you checked the price for flying to where you want to go? Compared it to Amtrak (a sleeper car compares to first class on a plane) Then remember the security, lines, parking, etc at the airport.

Advantage over driving: you don't have to drive. You can spend the (however many hours it is) relaxing, doing some work on your computer, sleeping, etc. When you drive you'll have to spend all your time (unless you have a 2nd person) paying attention to the road in front of you.

You didn't say where you are going to; There might be other/better choices for taking the train that won't be 14hrs long, if thats your issue.

For me to go to Chicago (I'm near Detroit) I can drive and spend $75 on gas; and 5hrs on the road. I can take the train for about $50; and have 5hrs to enjoy the trip. To fly I'd spend (from Expedia, random date for mid-july, not weekend) $90 for a 1.5hr flight plus an additional 2hrs in the Terminal and then there is parking on top of that.

peter

 

[Guest]

Sometimes using Amtrak makes good sense, sometimes not.

No one tool fits ALL tasks

This sums it up pretty well.

Thankfully I live and travel to places where Amtrak is a viable option, but there are lots of people out there where it makes no sense at all.

 

[the_traveler]

In May, I was in Portland, Or and had to return to RI, I had a ticket to fly for $149 one way. (I flew out.) But instead of dealing with "Security", a lot of waiting at the airport in PDX, a cramped overnight seat for a few hours, more waiting in ORD, a few more hours in a cramped seat, and then waiting for your bags in PVD, I chose the train to come back! Even though it cost 3 times as much!

Why?

Because train travel is much more relaxing, you can get up and walk around whenever you want (true, you can on a plane too - from the front of coach to the back of the plane), you can eat whenever you want - and they're included with a room (you don't even get food on a plane), you can check 3 bags free (not $25 for the first bag and $40 for the second bag - or whatever it is), you can work on the train (if you want), etc, etc, etc...

 

[RailFanLNK]

I'm leaving Wednesday for San Antonio from Lincoln NE. Matter of fact..about 65,000 people are heading to SAS this weekend. Does it make sense to drive 3 hours to take rail from KC to STL, have a 8 hour layover and then a 24 hour trip on the Texas Eagle to reach San Antonio? YES! Why? Because in 2005 this very same conference in Toronto Canada was the biggest nightmare traveling experience I have ever encountered. The RT there and back almost ruined the conference. The delays, verbal abuse from the airline staff, the waiting, the lies, the hotel room I paid for to sleep in for 2 hours, the wrong information I was given when to return to ORD, the too full flight they re-booked me on the following day etc. All of this true! So that's when I started taking the train. Can I fly to SAS? Yep, and last I looked it was around $1200, can I drive? Yes, but I drive for a living, spend 55+ hours a week driving and thats the last thing I want to do when I'm on vacation. What makes "sense" is totally up to the individual. What doesn't make sense to me is how little rail transportation is funded and how much is pumped into the FAA, Highways, Interstates. And before you say, "well Amtrak doesn't make any money"....well neither does I-29, I-80, I-70, HWY 81.......................

 

[fredevad]

Unless they actually let you drive the train, why would anyone want to go through that hassle and expense?

• To enjoy the scenery instead of having to concentrate on driving.
• To do something else (play cards, take a nap, talk a walk, etc.) when the scenery isn't interesting.
• To bypass city congestion, construction, etc.
• To be able to "move about the cabin" whenever you want.
• To meet new and interesting people.
• To not have to stop for meals.
• To actually be able to get a meal.
• To not have to stop and check into a motel to rest.
• To be able to use the restroom 5 minutes before you reach your destination.
• To reach your destination (relatively) rested.
• Because someone absolutely, positively, doesn't have to be there overnight.
• Because someone might actually enjoy riding the rails.
   
  ... and ...
• To see your kids' faces light up when you tell them you're are taking the train.

I'm sure there are lots more reasons, but my lunch break is nearly over.

 

[Texas Gal]

I have had friends ask me why am I taking a train if I can get somewhere faster by plane or drive. It's a valid question if you are unaware of train travel. My main reason for train travel is the joy of riding on the train itself. I do tell friends if you need to get somewhere fast maybe the train is not for them. I make a vacation out of the train itself more than the destination I am going to. I find it very relaxing and love the whole experience. You can get your own bedroom to sleep in, visit the dining car for dinner, go to the lounge and meet interesting people. I guess it would be like going on a cruise. You go to certain destinations but you always enjoy just being on the ship as well. You might give the train a try sometime for the experience. In my opinion it's really a fun way to travel. I hope that makes sense to you as to why I love to travel by train.

 

[Guest]

:hi: To paraphrase an old commercial: "Sit back and leave the train driving to us!"I'm with the previous poster that says he is puzzled by this post-if I had to guess I'd say that you have had little, if any, Amtrak travel, and if this is the case you have nothing to relate to except the price and the time it takes! I wont try to convince you to do what seems like a waste of your time and money,the two other ways to travel you mention, driving and flying, are both the worst ways to do vacation travel which is supposed to be fun! I'll close with a couple of old sayings that you might think about, "try it, you'll like it" and "the journey is the thing"! Amtrak will drive the train for you while you relax, soak in the passing scenery, meet really interesting and diversified people from everywhere, and basically let your cares float away for the duration of your vacation while rolling down the tracks listening to the train whistle blow!

 

[Tennessee Traveler]

Rail make ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE in Nashville, Tennessee, but I do it anyway -- but only as a railfan where the train is the vacation. In Nashville, the nearest Amtrak connections are at least 200 miles in Birmingham, Memphis, or a little further in St. Louis or Atlanta. Frankly, I would not drive and park my car for weeks at any of these locations. So the only real option is to FLY. Thanksfully, with Southwest Airlines the dominant airline in Nashville, flights to Chicago and any where else for that matter and very reasonable and at or lower than $200 roundtrip even to the West Coast including Seattle. Great thing is that American, Delta, USAir, United, and other airlines match or compete with Southwest fares.

Amtrak should waste no time reinstating a Chicago to Florida train via Louisville, Nashville, Chattanooga, and Atlanta. Such a train would make great connections in Chicago and Atlanta both east and west AND I WOULD DEFINITELY begin and end my rail trips in Nashville. Yes, I know CSX tracks in Indiana to Louisville are in need of rebuilding and CSX would not welcome a passenger train on its Tennessee lines.

The sad thing is that Nashville, Music City, is a destination for many. We just hosted the CMA Country Music Fan Fare in early June with over 65,000 country music fans from all 50 states and many international fans including large groups from Australia and Europe. Not one of them came by rail. They all came by car, bus, and airlines. So, you all come to see us in Music City! We were definitely FLOODED May 1-2, but the music plays on and WE ARE NASHVILLE!

 

[the_traveler]

If it were not for taking the train, I would not have met and talked with people from

• RI
• MA
• NY
• MN
• ND
• MT
• WA
• BC
• OR
• CA

All on the same trip!

True, on a plane and you're seated in 21-A you may talk to the person in 21-B, but I doubt you would sit down next to and talk to the people in 16-F or 25-E!

On a train you can and probably have a meal with 21-F, 33-B, 11-A and even 2-D!

And I didn't even include the people that I have met on this board - and some are even nice!

 

[louis]

Rail make ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE in Nashville, Tennessee, but I do it anyway -- but only as a railfan where the train is the vacation. In Nashville, the nearest Amtrak connections are at least 200 miles in Birmingham, Memphis, or a little further in St. Louis or Atlanta. Frankly, I would not drive and park my car for weeks at any of these locations. So the only real option is to FLY. Thanksfully, with Southwest Airlines the dominant airline in Nashville, flights to Chicago and any where else for that matter and very reasonable and at or lower than $200 roundtrip even to the West Coast including Seattle. Great thing is that American, Delta, USAir, United, and other airlines match or compete with Southwest fares.

Amtrak should waste no time reinstating a Chicago to Florida train via Louisville, Nashville, Chattanooga, and Atlanta. Such a train would make great connections in Chicago and Atlanta both east and west AND I WOULD DEFINITELY begin and end my rail trips in Nashville. Yes, I know CSX tracks in Indiana to Louisville are in need of rebuilding and CSX would not welcome a passenger train on its Tennessee lines.

The sad thing is that Nashville, Music City, is a destination for many. We just hosted the CMA Country Music Fan Fare in early June with over 65,000 country music fans from all 50 states and many international fans including large groups from Australia and Europe. Not one of them came by rail. They all came by car, bus, and airlines. So, you all come to see us in Music City! We were definitely FLOODED May 1-2, but the music plays on and WE ARE NASHVILLE!

I agree - I would much rather travel through Nashville than Chicago, any old day of the week! I drive through Nashville (and stop there) about once a yr, enroute to North Carolina. The old east/west train route that went through Oklahoma from New Mex (Rock Island?) and on east through Memphis, Nashville, and finally Raleigh would be a welcome return.

Well, rail to me makes no sense either, but I love trains, so I do it. Even if it means putting up with Amtrak's mostly poor customer service (onboard and off) once or twice a year, I still get that rail sensation. Even if I don't really get my money's worth in service or food, I *usually* get a clean room/roomette, barring any waste matter left in the toilet (if on a Viewliner) from the previous occupant, as has happened on a few occasions.

Even if they had to break my roomette door down one time (as the refurbished train car's door hook swung round and locked me out) with no privacy for the entire night (which I paid for - and got no refund for).

Even if customer service sees fit to be rude whenever there is a complaint.

And..number one...even if I have to carry towels upstairs to the upper sleepers because the car attendant is just too lazy to do it himself.

 

[Ispolkom]

And I didn't even include the people that I have met on this board - and some are even nice!

And then there are miserable people like me.

I'm in the exact opposite position to the OP. My most frequent trip, St. Paul - Minot, is best made by train (an easy overnight in each direction). Driving takes a day in each direction, while flying costs ten times as much as the train. Even if I weren't fond of train travel, we'd still use Amtrak.

I'm confused, though, by the OP's description of "an easy 7 hour drive." It's been a long time since I've lived in Virginia, but my experience, especially on I-81 and I-95, wouldn't use the word "easy."

But hey, if the train doesn't work for you, fine. It's a free country.

 

[the_traveler]

I think many of the "guest" posters are members who are too lazy to sign in to their account!

Much like they like to complain about "the lazy staff, both on and off the train"!

I'll see your "lazy staff on and off the train", and raise you "the lazy staff for an airline at the airport and elsewhere"!

 

[Cho Cho Charlie]

It makes sense for me, but possibly, I am in a more unique situation.

An air ticket to Florida is about $150, coach, one way, per person, after all the fees are added in. So, for me and my kid, that's about $600.

A set of Amtrak rail tickets to Florida is about $700, round trip, for the both of us, and that is FIRST CLASS. Yea, it is expensive for my sleeper ticket, but my kid gets to accompany me in FIRST CLASS with only paying 1/2 of a coach ticket. That fact, is what results in taking Amtrak, making sense for me.

 

[LA Resident]

Of course the network makes no sense outside the NE Corridor, the Pacific Surliner corridor and perhaps one or two other short-haul routes. That's why ridership is more of a curiosity than custom nationally. That's why the few of us who like trains for more than A-to-B transit get confused looks from friends when talking about long-distance train trips.

Corridor travel in the US should be brought up to European/Asian standards, and subsidized to the full extent necessary, as it represents a true alternative to freeway or air travel. For the rest of the Amtrak network, those of us wanting train travel should be willing to pay the full freight (no pun intended.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Let's say you're traveling between San Antonio and Austin. We're too close for flights. There is a big fat six-lane highway between us, but there is also an exceptional amount of random "construction" that can slow everything down to a crawl, especially on the weekends. I got to see just how much of a difference this makes recently. One weekend visit I took the train and it was fairly relaxing, especially on the way up. The next visit I took the car and got stuck in stop-and-go traffic and felt my blood boil as we were all locked in a major traffic jam none of us could avoid. That's one situation where the train makes a lot more sense than any other method I know of. I don't think anyone on this board would tell you that the train will work for everyone every time, especially those who are still of working age, but in some cases it makes sense.

 

[MattW]

One thing people forget about the train vs. planes, is the fact that the terminating/originating points or major city pairs are just a small part of the equation. Yea, sure flying Atlanta to Charlotte might be faster on paper, or even Chattanooga to Atlanta, but what about Toccoa, GA to Atlanta? Or Rome, GA to Atlanta? These places aren't served by 100 flights per hour like KATL seems to be. Rail serves to connect not only Big City, USA, but also Small Town, USA.

 

[jcl653]

Two notes to the original poster:

1: Learn math and calculate the real cost of driving versus taking the train.

2: Earn enough money so that paying $220 versus your "estimated" $70 isn't a big deal.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Earn enough money so that paying $220 versus your "estimated" $70 isn't a big deal.

Who are you to judge what other people make?

 

[the_traveler]

Learn math and calculate the real cost of driving versus taking the train.

The "real" cost of driving is NOT just the $60 or $70 of gas.

You have to include

1. The wear and tear on the car
2. The wear and tear on the driver(s)
3. Insurance for the car
4. Upkeep for the car
5. Parking for the car
6. (And don't forget) The THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS that YOU (and others) have paid for the road to be built

I would consider $220 to be a bargain!

And before you say "The Government does not subsidize roads or air", consider this:

1. Who paid the majority of building I-95, I-81 or even Main Street? (The Government)
2. Who pays the majority to repair the roads? (The Government)
3. Who provides the majority for things like plowing, etc....? (The Government)
4. Who provides most of the money for new airports to be built? (The Government)
5. Who operates the FAA and ATC? (The Government)
6. Who provided airlines with Billions of $$$ after 9/11? (The Government - and BTW - railroads got $-0-)

I for one would not like to pay a $2,000,000 toll to go down to the store to get some milk!

 

[Larry H.]

Wow another of those topics where realism is easily thrown out the window so to speak. We just had in another topic the points of view of some that long distance and just about anything except the east coast was a big looser and not worth it more or less. Well consider your self fortunate if your anywhere near one of the few rail hubs or main lines with multi directional services. One of my pet peeves for a long time was the reducing of lines to the point that often it does not make sense to take the train. People throwing out all those glowing defenses of loving the view, relaxing, well the point is fine and as a rail fan I totally understand. But if your just plain looking at travel as a way to get some where, then having to go way out of your way and waste lots of time and money is a big deterrent to building passenger bases.

Point in fact.. We live about an hour and a half from St. Louis. At one point even with amtrak you could get a morning train that connected with St. Louis to catch one of several trains running there. Now amtrak has not run that service in quite a few years. We would like to go to Kansas City via the River Runner or mule service. However to do so by rail would mean paying close to 80.00 or more to go 5 hours north out of our way and then back track after a layover to get to St. Louis. Something we used to do in a couple hours for a few dollars. Needless to say we haven't taken that trip.. I don't think anyone but a rabid rail fan would?

To me the money suggested for HIgh Speed Rail would be much better spent restoring connections for some more places in order to be providing passengers to the high speed rail when that occurs. The real reason people on the east can point to everything else with disdain as money losers is that the convenience of service has nearly been totally removed. If we had cross directional trains with good connections people would be flocking to ride amtrak as the tide is building in that direction. But first you have to be able to step on board to do so..

 

[Guest]

Excellent points, I concur and I love the view and relaxing on the train! Where I live there is only two trains a day, one North, one South and you have to layover in San Antonio or go to CHI to get anywhere else, yet we have several million people on the IH 35 corridor and the Texas eagles are running SOLD OUT most days! I'm not opposed to HSR but it's only practical in Corridors like the NEC and SoCal, and of course will cost many billions of dollars but so do all the other forms of transportation we think are "Free" such as roads and airports! :excl: