traveller2007

Ive taken Amtrak trains before and enjoyed them, despite delays and the fact they arent reliable and spending 2 long days on one without getting off!

I wrote a question to the forum early this year asking for advice on going from NYC to Montreal and several forum-ers warned me that Amtrak isnt reliable. So I went well prepared, but the 3 hr delay at Penn Station (with some rude, unhelpful Amtrak staff) wasnt a good start. The subsequent 3 hr delay after the Canadian border (when the train was reported to be travelling at10mph, and the air conditioning was blasting at top force, and I was already wearing all my sweaters which id retrived from my suitcase (it was 75 degrees outside...) almost COMPLETELY destroyed the relaxing element of the ride. I arrived in Montreal at midnight, instead of 6pm. My journey had doubled in time!!!

The scenery on that route is beautiful, and the train itself was clean and comfortable and spacious.

In terms of alternative routes, it wasnt so simple seem easy for someone in the UK to book in advance to pick up a car in NYC and drop it off at Montreal later the same day (although now I see I could have left it at the border and walked into Canada quicker than the train speed!). Going by road on a Greyhound bus didnt seem too attractive. yet Amtrak was not a good choice on this occasion.

Its such a shame. The USA is a stunning country with amazing landscape. The midsummer light was clear and the skies blue, the lakes and rivers clear and glistening. It was magicial. Its a shame Amtrak ruins this experience for travellers who want to enjoy and appreciate the country at ease, but knowing they will actually arrive at their detination! I almost lost my hotel reservation, as I arrived 6 hrs later than plannes and did not have a mobile phone to tell them otherwise.

With Europe becoming so aware of the carbon-footprints we leave from air travel and so many holiday companies offering rail alternatives to flying, even for very long distances across Europe, and everyone becoming so conscious of security issues on planes, it seems a shame that in the USA, domestic flying continues to be the reliable mode of transport. I know its a huge country and people dont take the train, but for shorter more popular routes (and not just Boston- NYC - DC) the system could benefit by some updating and try to encourage people to use the rail system. They would only be convinced if it is proved to work efficiently and get one from A to B in reasonable time.
Verdict: next time I am afraid Ill take a bus....sorry Amtrak!

suze

Let us know how Greyhound works out -lol! Seriously, until you do a similar trip by bus how can you compare? Not saying Amtrak doesn't have problems, but traveling by bus is MUCH worse imo.

wtm003

Suze, is correct about the bus. My parents use Amtrak quite a bit. They enjoy the scenery, aren't in a rush to get to their destination and have a good time talking with other passengers in the dining cars. They decided to try Greyhound on a short trip. It was miserable and they will never do it again. What should have been an easy 10 hour trip ended up being close to 16 to 18 hours with a stop in every tiny town in Kansas. They'll never do that again!

I believe most of Amtrak's delay issues are due to the freight train companies having control of the tracks, thereby having priority. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

nyc10036

I took the bus when I was in college for trips back home. 3 hr + 3 hr one-way.
I wouldn't do it unless I was desperate.
Amtrak is the only way to go.

Unfortunately, in this country, the airports and highways get much more funding than the railroad system. That's not to say the interstate highway system isn't aging too.

nytraveler

Unfrotunately, as you may have noticed, the current administration is in bed with the oil companies - and do everything they can to encourage travel by car and plane. Amtrak is not supported by the Federal goverment - so trains are really only an option for commuters right around some of the major cities - for commuting to/fro work. And most buses (except for a few specific route luxury coaches) are quite unpleasant.

I agree about the carbon footprint - but huge numbers of people here believe global warming is a fallacy - and keep on buying /driving giant pick-up trucks (with nothing in them), never mind masses of SUVs and full-size family sedans for one person - when a subcompact would do just fine.

xrae

It's an absolute shame there isn't more passenger rail -- national or local -- in the U.S.

rkkwan

It has nothing to do with the current administration.

Americans have decided in the 1950's that they want cars and they want to fly. Train travel hasn't been a viable mode of transport for half a century outside the few trunk routes.

Since AMTRAK was formed in the early 70's (from bankrupt passenger train lines), 15+ different congress (mostly Democratic) and 5 different presidents (including two Democrats) have not been able to revive long distance train travel, despite pouring billions into it.

It'll take a lot more - like ~$10 gasoline and $1,000 roundtrip domestic coach tickets - to revive passenger train travel. Now, I'm sure some people won't mind to see that (like Al Gore), but we'll all be in a worldwide recession if that's what going on.

This debate about passenger train travel in the US is half a century too late.

cfc

"...have not been able to revive long distance train travel, despite pouring billions into it."

A serious skew, since not one administration has actually worked proactively to make Amtrak viable in the long run. Would have been more accurate to say "despite repeated budget cuts and band-aid-level trickles of just-once funds..."

The idea of privatizing the rail system never made sense, and giving all freight traffic priority over any passenger train doomed any hope of on-time performance.

It would make SO much more economic and environmental sense to restore the passenger rail coverage to cities and areas either under-served by airlines or so congested that air travel actually takes longer than train travel.

But that would take national subsidy, and the anarchistic transport-planners would rather see a reasonable national rail "utility" die than give up devotion to privatization.

Passenger trains work in Europe because they provide pretty complete coverage, are given priority on the rails, and everyone thinks subsidies are worth it to keep the roads and airways from complete gridlock.

suze

The statement above is correct. Amtrak does not own the tracks (as trains do in Europe). They have to let freight etc. share with them because they do not have first right-of-way. This is at least part of the hold ups. At least true on the west coast USA between Seattle to LA routing.

rkkwan

Correct. Not one administration has done it. That's exactly what I'm trying to say, in response to someone saying its a problem with the current administration.

If someone thinks it will make so much economic and environment sense to restore intercity train travel, then please support politicians who do as well. Last time I checked, I haven't heard anybody in either party having that stance.

Maybe some of us here on Fodors.com should run for president with a pro-train platform. Who knows? If it makes so much sense, one may get elected on that issue alone.

HKP

Anyone want to try sketching a pic of a "pro-train platform"? Aren't all of them? Or do some fail to accommodate trains. LOL

What I would give for a really good rail system here. It's ridiculous that existing rail lines are being allowed to fail into hopeless disrepair and there's no way to get from most non-coastal cities to most other non-coastal cities, let alone towns and villages.

You can't interpret the various administrations' actions as anything other than a willful choice to trash the train systems not supported by freight companies. Short-sighted, cynical, and almost impossible to recover from at this point.

rkkwan

Existing rail lines are in very good shape. But they're owned by freight companies to run freight trains.

There was and is no dedicated passenger rail lines in the US outside the NE Corridor. In the "golden era" of train travel, those same rail lines were mostly used to put passenger trains, run by private companies like New York Central, Pennsylvania RR, etc. That was because they made money that way.

I still don't quite understand what some of you are proposing. Is it to build brand new passenger lines? if so, who's going to pay for them? How much should they charge to take passengers on these routes?

wtm003

rkkwan, I nominate you to run on the pro-train platform. Unfortunately, you'll then have to deal with the politics at the small town local level. Several years ago I read/heard about a proposal to build a high speed train between Chicago and St. Louis. Great idea, except the complaints came from the small towns along that route who were afraid of losing tax revenue since those who drive and make stops at McDonalds, etc., might take the train instead. Blaming the current administration for Amtrak's woes is ridiculous - it is much more complex as has been stated above.

rkkwan

I am a big fan of train travel. But if I had power in Washington, I would cut all the long-distance AMTRAK trains. They are draining resources to subsidize a few train fans and tourists.

Instead, money should be put in a few dedicated corridors where trains have proven, or will easily be proven, to make sense. More frequent service should be on those routes.

There's no reason why Acela Express are running between Washington and Boston at hourly interval, at the most, right now. If Japan can run Shinkansen trains between Tokyo and Osaka every few minutes, at least we can run them every 15 minutes and perhaps even more frequent. That way, we can entirely eliminate the Delta and USAirways shuttles, plus frequent service on CO, B6 and AA, on those routes. That's probably a hundred flights a day in those two markets.

The tracks between Rhode Island and NYC will need to significantly improved, but let's do it. Frequent trains in that corridor will pull a lot of people off the planes and the cars. Significantly reducing emissions too, with fewer flights and less congestion on the highways.

That's where AMTRAK money should be spent on. Not between NYC and Montreal, that's for sure.

Federal money should be given to some states to significantly improve regional trains that run on dedicated passenger-only trains. Caltrain is doing a decent job between San Franciso and San Jose. Give them money to run even faster and more frequent trains! It's a service that goes to downtown San Francisco with connecting BART and bus service, and a train shuttle to SFO.

AMTRAK West is doing okay, but LA to San Diego is less than hourly, and at 2:45, it's horrendously slow. If it can cover the 125 miles in 1:30, people will ride it.

Then you have Florida. Vast sum of money is wasted on the Silver trains to take vacationing families and retirees to Florida. Let them drive or fly. Give the state money to build a highspeed network between Daytona Beach and Miami, and between Daytona Beach and Tampa.

HKP

Understand your sentiment, but your scope is a little limited. For example, the WashDC - Florida routes carry a LOT of people within and among the states in between. Right now, to get from Raleigh to DC or Raleigh to Charleston, Columbia, etc. entails either arriving or departing at very strange hours, and we have comparatively "good" coverage. The Raleigh-DC traintrip takes 6+ hrs. (a high-speed train could do it in 3 or maybe less), assuming you never get sidelined, while driving takes 4 1/2. Note, though, that door-to-door including check-in and baggage claim, flying the route can take as much time as the train.

Cross-country trains also carry people in between the endpoints, too, which is more or less the point: with trains, an interlocking "hub" system is one of their best traits, and people can get on and off all kinds of places in between.

And otherwise, if you have neither trains nor planes serving "2nd tier" cities in the south and midwest and rural areas of the coast, who will serve them? Should it be like going on a tramp steamer -- where people book space in the back of an interstate semi?

rkkwan

HKP - If there's enough people training between the Triangle through Richmond to DC, then by all means give VA and NC money to improve the trains, or extend the NE Corridor to NC. My last post is an example of routes that can be built and run, not exclusive at all. I didn't mention anything about near Chicago or perhaps Portland-Seattle-Vancouver.

But what I totally disagree with you and many others are about those thin long-distance route. My whole point is that those routes are sucking up limited resources to provide service to very few people. It's been documented time and time again that AMTRAK will save money by flying each passenger on the Sunset Limited than running the trains.

So, unless ONE OF YOU become the President of United States AND can control Congress, there will always be a struggle to fund AMTRAK. The choice is continuing running money-hemorrhaging long distance trains to please a number of small communities and many congress-persons; or put money where it is economical and environmentally beneficial.

When time comes that the corridor trains can make a PROFIT, then by all means go ahead and waste money on the long-distance trains.

HKP

I'm not advocating for a "long thin route" insofar as what I think makes the most sense would be a tiered system based on length of trip -- crudely: up to 150 miles, bus, car or commuter rail; 150-750 miles, train; over 750 miles, plane. But obviously you can't force or require people and carriers to observe those kinds of priorities.

I would hope that some vestige of the "long thin" routes would remain as a leisure option, analogous to cruising on water. But in between the coasts, there's every reason to piece together intercity networks that would provide much better national coverage.

For example, unless you were a tourist in Europe, you'd never book London-Moscow travel by train; but you could still get there by train because there are linked cities in between.

nytraveler

Setting aside the fact that cars have been common in the US since long before they were in europe (in the 1920's middle clas families in the US generlly had cars - while in eurooe they were still a luxuty for the very rich) which helped make auto travle more popular than trains - european governments made a concerted effort to focus on rail travel versus auto.

They did this both by making sure rail served most places/upgrading to better services - and by discouraging car travel through massive taxation of gas (to raise tax revenues, reduce dependence on foreign oil and maintain a positive balance of international trade). Gas in the US is so much cheaper than in europe solely do to the federal government keeping gas taxes very low versus those in europe.)

And no government has chosen to fight both the oil and car manufacture lobbies by putting any support on rail. That;s why it's really only effective in the suburbs of a couple of major cities and in the northeast corridor (since it links several cities where a very high percentage of middle class people do no own cars).

traveller2007

Youre right - Id need to take the Greyhound to acrually compare how bad that might be! I did take a bus down the New Jersey shore though last month, and that was fine. I find your discussions about the trains interesting, only because I think they also need a complete overhaul in the UK - they arent anywhere near as good, or efficient as the rail services in mainland Europe and I think this might be due to govt subsidies in other countries.
Lets see what I choose to do next time Im in the USA...! Still a lovely country though - none of this has put me off!

redsoxgal

Hello all, and thanks for the thoughtful posts. Interstate train travel in the US is not about getting there on time - it's about the journey. I'll only take Amtrak when I'm taking the scenic route - the Coast Starliner from Oakland to LA is a wonderful way to see the coast of California from an old-fashioned perspective. You can still eat dinner in the dining car a la Eva Marie Saint and Cary Grant. But you have to expect delays and inconveniences. Having said that my ticket cost $22. The Acela Express on the east coast is pretty much the only way to come close to an on-time arrival, and even that, despite the expense, is iffy. Safe travels all.