How to illustrate delights of train travel

When advocates of increased investment in passenger train equipment and infrastructure make our case to elected officials, we generally emphasize the boost that this investment offers to the economy, the importance of providing mobility choices to otherwise isolated populations without easy access to cars and air travel, and the energy efficiency and reduced pollution that would come from shifting more car and air trips to the rails. These arguments are solid and backed by evidence, but they tend not to grab or inspire people in a way that raises transportation’s level of importance compared to other issues people care about.

When talking with people who have little or no experience with train travel, it is perhaps more effective to discuss the benefits that trains offer to the individual traveler, and secondarily how world-class train service would help society at large. Advocates must reframe the choice in travelers’ minds so that, by choosing the train, they don’t see themselves as sacrificing time or flexibility, but rather as gaining a much richer travel experience. Why would I confine myself in a car, having to pull off the highway for rest stops, to get food, and to sleep, when I could lean back in a comfortable seat or my own room and have access to a restaurant and observation gallery without having to stop? Or why would I fly somewhere and pay for a hotel room when I could take an overnight train, sleep as I travel, and arrive refreshed?

Some pay a premium for private “land cruise” rail tours that offer this experience, but it shouldn’t be thought of as a luxury. The Pullman Company thrived at the large scale that it did precisely because its product was within reach for the middle class. It was not marketed as a lavish extravagance, but rather as a refined experience that was within most travelers’ budgets. And trains are such efficient mobility machines in part because they can serve multiple markets — from budget-minded coach passengers to sleeping car riders to private car owners — on a single vehicle, with the same motive power and operating crew and shared dining and lounge/observation cars.

Sadly, Amtrak’s sleepers today are more expensive than Pullman berths were in their heyday, even accounting for inflation, and are generally more expensive than coach airfare—sometimes comparable to first class airfare. The main reason for this is the limited supply. The Pullman Company had a huge fleet of cars that could be redeployed nationwide based on demand, thereby maximizing revenue. Amtrak has only a limited fleet with just enough cars to have two or three, sometimes four, sleepers on each long-distance train with a small backup supply. Pullman also had a greater variety of accommodations suited to different travelers’ needs at different price points, from open section berths to slumbercoaches to single roomettes to double bedrooms, suites and drawing rooms. Amtrak essentially has only two types of sleeping accommodation (Roomette and Bedroom) which are each designed and priced for two people to share, and whose prices include dining car meals (this was not the case historically on American passenger trains).

Most of the first-time train riders I speak with when I travel were attracted either by recommendation from an acquaintance who had an enjoyable train trip, or were turned off by the indignities of modern air travel or the stress and congestion one faces when driving. But repeat customers tend to come back because they realize that trains offer so much more than a means of getting from A to B. As an Amtrak ad campaign a few years ago aptly put it, “trains are alive with stunning scenery, easy camaraderie, and the space and time to simply be.” Who can say that about a car, a plane or even a bus? There’s something about the size of a train (its weight and being fixed to the rails makes it sturdier than cars and buses are at the same speed), the pace at which a train traverses the landscape and threads along bodies of water, and the contemplative nature of watching towns, forests, farms, rivers and mountains pass by that makes the experience uniquely endearing.

Why resign oneself to putting up with the stress of getting somewhere when you can enjoy the journey as much as the destination? This is the idea that passenger train devotees should strive to convey to the uninitiated. Even so, there are still some people who will never be convinced to take the train, or for whom the train simply isn’t a viable option because they live too far from a station or the schedule isn’t convenient for them. For these folks, train advocates should explain that increased investment in the mode might make it a viable choice for them in the future. But a more balanced transportation system benefits everyone even if they don’t use trains or transit. Those who fly longer distances would benefit from expanded air service and perhaps lower fares if airlines weren’t burdened by running so many short-haul flights over distances that are better covered by fast trains. And those who choose to drive will have less congested roads if more of their fellow drivers are able to take the train instead.

Americans are disadvantaged in many ways by only having two viable travel choices for most trips: drive or fly. And our society is poorer for not being able to enjoy the full participation of those who are unable or cannot afford to use these modes, and must rely on our substandard network of surface common carriers. Having trains and transit as more robust travel choices would make us that much richer, even those of us who use trains rarely or not at all.