On travel by rail, generally...
 

Recently, I happened to be watching any one of the several James Bond films in which 007 travels by train across Europe in order to advance the plot by affording the appropriate villain an opportunity to ambush him and whichever girl he happens to be dragging alongside at the moment.

For whatever reason, it occurred to me that rail transit was, and continues to be, an actual mode of transportation by which people traverse great distances, and not merely a fictional construct. And I've never been on a train.

I don't mean commuter trains / subways / elevated rail or what have you. If you count those, I've probably logged more time between the turnstiles than at least 90% of the earth's population. But it sort of piqued my curiosity to explore the practicality of it all as a means on long-haul travel.

I typically fly home to Florida at least once or twice a year to visit the family, and always around Christmas time. So I decided to use that as my test case. As a control, I first looked up flights from SAN (my home airport) to RSW and SRQ, the two nearest airports to PGD which can actually be reached by scheduled service. Putting aside any redeyes, one-way fares departing 15 Dec averaged $130-$200 RSW, $200-$250 SRQ.

Ok, on to Amtrack.com. The nearest major terminal to me here is LAX, and nearest my destination is ORL (MCO in airline-speak.) Both are rather further out of my way than the airlines, but what the hell.

Departing Dec 15 LAX, the total fare is $290 to arrive ORL on December 20, FIVE DAYS LATER. And that's for a coach seat, mind you.

Let's say that I wanted an actual bunk to lie down on, at least for the 69 hour leg from LAX to CHI. The very cheapest option, a "Superliner Roomette," would add $623 to the ticket price, a total of $913. And it's not like you get a sink, shower or toilet, either- that's just a cubicle measuring 3'6" x 6'6" with two chairs that convert into a bed, with another bunk that folds out of the wall above it.

And let's say that at some point between 6:40 PM on Dec 18 and 12:55 on Dec 20 I wanted to lie down as well? Well, that's two segments, one from CHI to WAS (17 hours 30 minues) and one from WAS to ORL (17 hours 25 minutes), both overnighters. The aforementioned roomette would run me $228 for the second leg, and $261 for the third leg. So if I were to decide that I actually wanted to lie down and sleep in a small cubicle both nights, my total ticket price would be $1,402, ONE WAY.


Seriously? Does anybody actually do this?

So a shittier form of transportation takes 5 times longer and costs about 4 times more. wow can't wait to ride a train to the other side of USA. lol

I know people who take trains to Chicago or whatnot (I'm up in the Twin Cities). I guess it's acceptable for things like that, most of them end up paying a bit less than they would for the airlines.

Amtrak around here is advertising their services as a replacement for driving. They say that it's a more scenic route from Portland to Seattle, and obviously with no traffic they get there (consistently) in something like 3.5 hours. Without traffic it'll take me about 3 hours driving, depending on where I am in PDX, and where I'm going in Seattle. The train trip costs $37, gas to get up there costs about $17.4, which is using a conservative figure of 30mpg, when in actuality I averaged something like 33 last time I went, so more like $15.81 in gas.

So for less than half as much, along with the freedom to stop as much as I want, listen to whatever I want, leave when I want, jack it when I want, and have the freedom to drive around once I'm there? Yeah, I'll take the risk of driving. Plus the $37 is for an evening ticket only, and if I leave at the same time in my car there won't be any traffic. To leave during the day risks traffic in the car, and costs another $12 on the train.

They've excluded them selves to people who just like to ride the train and have no real obligations. The only thing I can say about the train is the food was decent in the more expensive suite's

Amtrak has received several infusions of cash from the government, haven't they? Not surprising, really, that it's the USPS of travel.

America has never lent itself to anything other then driving or flying. There are not enough useful train lines, so it takes way to long and cost way to much. As here it more common to have a car so people can just drive and that means less people riding the trains, therefore they have to shut down more and more track to cover cost. Unlike oversea were it more common to not have car and use trains to travel from town to town.

It is just another one of those, good/bad oddities of America.

how interesting.

I was just looking at train schedules today.

From Riomaggiore to Nice. 6 hours worth with two transfers.

Then I think a quick jaunt to Monte Carlo for some Baccarat and maybe a flirtatious drive on some cliffside highway with my ladyfriend, after which I will extract two martinis from the center console arm rest.

I took the chunnel or whatever when I was in europe a few years back. It was definitely a nice experience although there wasnt much of a view (I feel like I was in one of the various tunnels for half the time, the other half you're going so fast you cant see much), but it was overall nice. Dont remember the cost though as it was packaged into my trip

Side note: Your sig pic is AWESOME! So cool!

There's no such things as "quick jaunt" when it comes to Amtrak. I loathe Amtrak.

Wow, with prices like that, it would almost make one think that it was just another mismanaged, wasteful, failing government entity. Devoid of any common sense and on the verge of bankruptcy... oh wait. Nevermind.

Trains in the US are slow expensive and pointless, I would never use on unless I had ABSOLUTELY no other option. Here in Europe on the other hand... Trains are a relatively cheap mode of travel they're almost always on time, fairly quick unless you're trying to get to some tiny little town in which case sometimes it may take a while.

There are a few small airlines over here (such as Ryan Air) that are EXTREMELY cheap. I just looked up a flight from Frankfurt to Dublin a few nights ago and it's going to cost me somewhere around 25 euro when its all said and done. If it's more than a 5-6 hour drive or train ride, it's most likely better to fly, even over here.

Its actually a great conspiracy. I'm not kidding, nor am I wearing a tinfoil hat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_A...eetcar_scandal

Hunter S Thompson wrote a great article early in his career (that I'm having a terrible time trying to find online, but it was pre fear and loathing) comparing air vs. rail travel, and air travel kicked rails ass. But this was also when Air travel actually had amenities, and people weren't treated as cattle. I think theres alot of criticisms of rail in Hunters time that could be applied to air now.

In September I have a conference up in Philly and I decided I'm gonna take Amtrak. I booked the round trip for $81. It says the trip will take 1 hr 50 mins each way, and presumably that's with one stop (Baltimore I'd guess) because I was too cheap to book the $99 each way fare that was non-stop but only ten minutes faster. So my $81 round trip is a hell of a lot cheaper than flying, and will also be faster if you consider how long it takes to get to the airport and clear security.

There are trains and there are trains. For example, the train I have been weekly-commuting with cross Sweden (Left old job this Friday and have 5weeks payed vacation, FTW! Starts new really cool job 1st of Sept, FTW-again) is considered an old among modern high speed trains. It still does a steady 220km/h and each seat have a power connection + VLAN. It takes me 530km across Sweden in just under 3h.

Then there is the German ICE-V trains, who does 330km/h as standard, but are capable of going up to 400km/h.

But... they would still have to speed up a bit to compete with air travel. At least here, flying isn't very expensive either.

I hopped on an Amtrak from Vancouver to Seattle a couple years ago, and it was only $25 for that 4 hour trip, definitely more cost effective than a flight. On the flip side, I spent a couple weeks rambling around the UK last year, and it was cheaper (by a couple hundred Pounds) to rent a car + fuel it up than it was to buy rail tickets to get around. The cost of one unlimited-access 2 week rail pass was more than the car rental itself.

Rail travel works on the east coast a bit but only for short distance because you get to circumvent traffic and airline security. Trains are un-American considering we are defined by the open road and 2335lb of turbocharged iron blazing through a landscape, unbridled by a rail or a station. Trains are great for short distance commuting in heavily congested areas, but I'm American enough that rather than give my federal income tax to a rail system, I'll buy fuel for my iron chariot and go it alone, when and where I want.



I have this printed out from microphiche in my highschool library.

Thanks! Not sure if my neighbors thought I was so cool, though, setting my up camera on a tripod in the driveway, and pausing every few minutes while I swapped wheels to walk over, remove the lens cap, and carefully take another photo.

I've railed in Europe a few times and it was a great way to get around.

On the other hand I bought a car in San Louis Obispo a few years ago. I figured I'd take the train "up the coast" and drive my new car home. The drive usually takes me 4 hours, this train ride although beautiful, took 14 hours! The ticket was 70 some bucks, but they had well over a hundred out of me by the time I got off (beer).

I met many people who train frequently, and they ALL said "do not take the train if you have any schedule at all" it's only for meandering old folks who have nothing better to do than sit there and look out a window.

Road from DC up to Meriden CT. I enjoyed it, but then I was just out of college, doing volunteer work and had flow to DC to visit my grandparents and had time.

Would I do it again, not when compared to the price of a flight. I would only do it if I wanted to take a scenic route but if thats the case I can just go north of houston to the Historic Texas Railroad and ride in an old fashion steam locomotive and get my kicks with out turning it into a major trip.

Honestly, I just don't get it.

If it were a great deal most cost-effective, and perhaps just a tad quicker, I'd actually rather enjoy the experience. Did a bit more rooting around, and apparently it is possible to make the trip in only four days, but for around the same cost. Honestly, I can't figure out why:

1: To travel from a city which is on the Mexico border to an area that is within spitting distance of Cuba, it seems to be absolutely necessary to first travel to a city which is practically in Canada, and

2: Why the hell it costs so bloody much.

Seriously- I could rent a comfortable full-sized car and drive to Florida and back, paying for gas, meals, and reasonably priced hotels along the way, and arrive in roughly 2/3 the time, for less money, and get to stop wherever and whenever I wanted to. And I'd have a car while I was there!

I just don't understand how they can still be in business. I know, I know- govt subsidy... Let me rephrase: I don't understand why anybody would choose to travel this way, given their routings and costs.

I think it comes down to a couple things:

You have to be going from and/or to somewhere with no or shitty air service

You probably want to be able to accomplish something other than driving while you travel

You aren't in the US

I honestly wish they had more railroads to the various cities in america, its too bad they don't. Riding on the rail in Japan is fun and can get you about everywhere.

The golden years of trains in america has been dead for a long time.
oh well.

I took a train from Baltimore up to NJ when I bought Gary Fischman's first Miata. Cost me like $60 one way.

It's probably easier to take a transmission and your drugs on a train if you stay in the US vs a plane.

One other thing about airlines and flights. Add on the hour and a half of BS getting through security checks and all that BS prior to boarding. Law of diminishing returns the further you travel.

Frank

If we got high speed, cross country rail, I would fork over the extra cash just to experience it every now and then, but overall, I see no point in rail travel. Leave it for freight, I'll take a plane or a car. I rate bus even lower though. NO FUCKING WAY I would take a bus across the country.

Joe Perez, you are an incredibly smart guy, and I am sure the following should be a no brainer..

*USA is the largest and biggest and mostest market in the world for the automotive industry.
*While the US is no longer what it used to be in the automotive manufacturing business, it still retains its major player namebadge in the oil game.

*Railway transportation, pretty much anywhere outside the US is cheap, fast, reliable and popular. Hmmm.
*Even Japan spends gazillions on train related R&D. Japan does not do jack if there is no return in it.

* A nation like the US does not become the largest auto market overnight. Or on its own. Or by chance. Or without some serious fucking help from the oil people, namely the assholes of the planet.
In order to accomplish that goal, one must either popoo, discredit or generally undermine the competition. These competitors include "trains", too.

If your mother is baking delicious brownies and the whole neighborhood is lining up for those treats, and if my name happens to be, say, Nabisco, I either blow her out of the water (from a business standpoint!) or just buy her out and wither your mom's brand away. Shark eat shark.
This is the exact demise of the railway system in the US.
Look at Greyhound's past. Pretty similar.

I mean trains literally fly all over Europe. How is that possible, then?

The same mentality that insists on the godforsaken B2 bomber program at a cost of nearly 2 billion dollars per fucking plane, an influence of that magnitude is capable of pretty much anything.
Including choosing not to educate its population, and hauling its young males halfway around the planet to kill and plunder to protect the integrity of its very own balance sheet.

Yes, the rail system sucks in the states. But there are reasons for that.

You do understand the difference in population density between the U.S. and Western Europe, right? I'm not saying it couldn't have been a massive conspiracy between Oil/Automotive/Nabisco, but I think there are some pretty obvious explanations that avoid that possibility.

The train from DC/Baltimore to NYC/NJ is great. I used to take that weekly for work. Sit down, plug in your shitty air card, plug in your laptop, whee. More expensive but 1-2 hours quicker than driving.

Train is nice. Flying is stressful. Train isn't. Driving can be stressful. Train isn't. Should it cost more? Joe you forgot this country is about to go second world.

I have to go to DC today and would ride the choo choo down there but fuck, then I would have to take metro, then walk blah blah and then the commuter train doesn't start up until 4pm so fuck it. I'm driving.

Excuse me, but what does population density have to do with a rail system?

The main function of a railway system is transportation. Across vast distances.

Hauling people is a secondary function of a railway system to those such as carrying raw materials, finished goods, etc between points of supply and demand.

Think big.

BTW, big money, and its business patterns is not a conspiracy.
Just ask the millions who have suffered/died/wished to die in Central and Latin America.
Or, ask the people of Bhopal, India.
Or, the native peoples of Alaska.
Or, those rotting away in places like Guantanamo Bay.

Please do not get me wrong here. I am a US citizen.
Being an American, and upholding real American values does not mean tooting the horn of the crappy Republican rhetoric, as personified by the now thankfully defunct Bush administration.

Seriously?

all the places where high speed trains flourish have high population densities.

I dont understand why there arent a couple highspeed rails in the northeast US though. BTW I dont consider Acela to be a highspeed rail

I don't quite agree with the point on Europe being more dense populated as a reason. You can see the same differences in population density thru Europe as you do thru USA. People seam to think about Italy, France and other 3rd world countries when we speak about "Europe". The northen part of Europe / Scandinavia have the same systems, but very few persons per km2.

BUT! We pay ~13,5kr/liter för gas. At an exchange rate rate of $1 = 7,5SEK, our gas price lands on $6,48/gallon. Prices are similar thru Europe. now THAT could have something to do with people looking for other ways of traveling. That and that trains are environmentally friendly = lots of easy politic-points for whoever is in charge at the moment.

so trains literally fly, do they?

(maglevs dont really qualify)

Seriously, do you ever read past the first line of a post?

You know, I have been to school once, and I remember someone talking about something called "figure of speech" there..

I'm glad you're now posting 1 line comments, it makes things easier on me.

Do you realize that the vaunted Japanese high speed rail system is virtually bankrupt and the Japanese government has taken on about $200 billion in debt to keep it running?

Or that the EU rail subsidies total about $100 billion annually?

No thanks.

One would have to look at the total costs, including subsidies, of Amtrak and of the roads. Roads are subsidized too.

I suspect that long distance trains are more expensive than driving in this country, and even more so than flying. Now what if the rail networks were more extensive and there were more users? Then obviously the cost per trip would come down. However, I still suspect that trains are more expensive - look at the cost of European long distance train rides, compared to driving - AFAIK the gas tax there pays for the roads.

I'm familiar with figures of speech. you put "literally" in front of them to tell people you're not being figurative.

That's my daily commute. Odenton Marc to Union Station. Union red line to Silver Spring. Only takes about 50 minutes and fed pays for it. I'm so green that punching out my cats won't make me feel guilty!

A point that I think is being missed is that Amtrak has to pay to run on those lines. Big rail companies like BNSF, CSX, N&S, UP and SP own the rail that Amtrak uses. They to have to pay to use the rails...like a toll road. Considering the aforementioned companies make their money transporting freight, they need to make sure they don't lose much when making way for pass. service since Amtrak has "right of way" and that all freight trains must yield/stop when an Amtrak train is in route. They're not about to let that happen for no cost.

The other problem with rail travel is that we are too spread out. For example, I am here in Atlanta. If I want to go to the beach, the quicket one I can get to is probably Charleston. It's a 5hr or so drive...and a little over 300 miles. How far will that get you in Europe? Going London to Paris is closer/faster...and considering that both cities are MUCH larger, there are more people moving between them making transportation other than driving much easier. Maybe I want to go to a slightly more populated city...like Miami. Now Miami is in my neighboring state, right? Now I'm looking at a 660 mile 10hr drive. How far will that get you in Europe? That is like driving from Paris to Berlin. Now look at a mapped route of both and compare it to the rest of the area. That ATL to MIA line is dwarfed by the rest of the country while the Paris to Berlin line seems much more significant compared to the area. Hell...Paris to Nice isn't even as far as Atlanta to Miami. That's population density for ya. There is demand for rail which makes it work. The large cities in Europe are closer together, which makes mass transportation easier (read- demand)...what is across a country or two for them is like driving across two states and barely passing through a large city.

Watch out, they fight back....

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3363/...f0ec978158.jpg

Amtrak is really only viable in the NE corridor, where they run a shit ton of trains, and for the few who happen to live along (and have travel destinations along) their few overland routes.

I've taken the Portland<--> Seattle train numerous times on business. It works well for that - you can read for business or pleasure along the way, and you don't have to deal with traffic. You might have some extra reading time if one of our fine American Teenaged Youth decides not to move outside the yellow line at the station, and gets killed, as happened on Sunday in Puyallup WA.

July 2nd we (the family) took Amtrak's Empire Builder route to Glacier National Park. We had the De-Lux sleeper compartment that sleeps four. It actually worked pretty well, once the bunks are laid out there's plenty of room for two adults and two children to sleep. Pretty remarkable for a compartment that's about 8'x4'.

This worked well for us because we live 3 miles from the downtown Portland station, and our destination was actually a station along the route. Get on the train at 5:30 pm, eat dinner, sleep, get to Glacier at 9:30 am. Compared to flying to Montana, with connections, security, car rentals, etc, it was much simpler. It was not less expensive, but it was much simpler. Not having to wrangle a 6 and 4 year old through security is worth a lot.

Taking the train is not about getting to your destination in the quickest way possible. It's an experience in itself. In our case, there's some epic scenery along the way to/from Glacier. Lots of photography and train nuts on the train. It worked for us because the kids loved it and thought it was neat, and the train schedule was incredibly convenient for our particular trip.

But for random long-distance got-to-get somewhere travel, Amtrak is not viable.

To make train transportation viable as a method of commuting in the U.S., this ^^ has to be the starting point. Unless people can get to work faster on the train than in a car, rail is doomed to fail.

I live in Columbus, Ohio area. I would love to see a high speed rail system from Cincinnati, through Columbus, and on to Cleveland. It would be built overhead of our major North-South freeway, stop 2-3 times between each pair of cities, and have 2-3 stops within each city. Unfortunately, to make it viable as a commuters' transportation system would also require a comprehensive secondary rail system within each of the three cities. My morning commute is 20 minutes; I doubt I would be taking a rail system to work on a regular basis. I have a co-worker who lives in Cincinnati, and she would happily take a train. I also have job opportunities in both Cincy and Cleveland that I would be more willing to take if I didn't have to move or drive 100 minutes a day to. (I love my 20 minute commute) I would expect that something like this would create population centers at each of the 2-3 stops between cities. Unfortunately, no one is going to justify the $50 billion price tag.

If you fancy a trip, perhaps the Taggart Transcontinental Railway?:giggle:

And there are, in fact, many places in the US where this is the case. If you live on the Kersey coast and work in Manhattan, then the PATH commuter train is your best option. If you live on Long Island and work in Manhattan, then the LIRR train is your best option. If you live in inland NJ and work in Manhattan, then NJTrans is your best option.

See a trend here?

The same is true in certain other major metro areas in the US- Chicago, Boston, DC and St. Louis come to mind. But there's a key difference here. These are services targeted specifically at commuters who work in the downtown area of a major city, and live in the outlying suburbs. It just doesn't work anywhere else.


It's the long-haul service that I don't understand. I'm pretty sure that there aren't too many folks who live in Laughlin, NV and work in Garden City, KS , so why the hell does Amtrack even expend the effort of running trains along that track?


That's really the key. I grok light rail and commuter trains in metro areas and their suburbs. I don't understand why they bother continuing to run long-haul passenger service.