People today do not go to Europe by ship. They will cruise to Europe aboard a ship. Therefore, 7 days over and 7 back per ship or ship one way and fly the other is the marketing plan. Yes, yes, you could take a ship to Europe but you would be a passenger under their cruise marketing and not as a commercial passenger as we would call it..
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
That sounds about right. I remember my parents taking the SS United States, which was the fastest, in 1964. It held the record of 3 days, 10 hrs. Normally it averaged a 30-knot (35 mph) crossing speed. Today's ships are "built for comfort, not for speed" as the song goes. They don't look very seaworthy, as all rooms are way above the waterline. Rather, they look like floating resort hotels.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
aegrotatio If they can hold out until April 29, Inside Brittanica (steerage) is $907 plus tax per person eastbound. 7 days.
If they can hold out until April 29, Inside Brittanica (steerage) is $907 plus tax per person eastbound. 7 days.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
I was just wondering about transatlantic cruising with this month's volcano problem. It might cost too much for those people but can it cost higher than furloughing in a hotel (non-voucher) for a week or more? The crisis may continue for several weeks or months even when they finally figure out how to fly around the ash clouds.
henry6But the bigger question begged is, "does the world really want a liesurely, sophisticated, long distance (circle one or all: train, bus, ship, other) service? We have occasional special trips and tours, but on a regular basis, a "passenger service" basis?
henry6 I think as long as Amricans have to have it yesterday or the day before..,
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
carnej1Of course there's still one "regular service";
The "so what" isn't the time but the subsidy. I'm sure there are a fair amount of folks who would prefer to take an civilized, spacious, ocean liner to Europe instead of flying, but there is no regular service because the cost of running an ocean liner are so much greater than airline service that nobody's in the market. Perhaps an "Amtrak of the Seas" would be able to provide service with a 50 cents on the dollar subsidy. Should we do t
oltmanndSawtooth500DeggestyThere are people who prefer to travel in civilized comfort and not be subjected to the many inconveniences that abound with travel by air. I couldn't agree with you more. When you need to get there in a hurry planes are great, but life doesn't always have to be about doing stuff in a hurry. Amtrak without a doubt is a far more pleasurable way to travel than being crammed into a small aluminum tube for a few hours. Yeah it takes longer but so what?For starters, I agree that taking the train is a nice way to travel. I love all those things you cited. The "so what" isn't the time but the subsidy. I'm sure there are a fair amount of folks who would prefer to take an civilized, spacious, ocean liner to Europe instead of flying, but there is no regular service because the cost of running an ocean liner are so much greater than airline service that nobody's in the market. Perhaps an "Amtrak of the Seas" would be able to provide service with a 50 cents on the dollar subsidy. Should we do that, too? I think the trick to keeping the LD trains around is to improve their performance. I kind of doubt there is enough improvement to be had to bring the subsidies in line with that of other modes. At the start of Amtrak, the supposition was that LD routes would be pared down and corridor services would be expanded so that the corridors' above the rails operating surplus could cross subsidize the few remaining LD trains. That never happened - for a variety of reasons.
Sawtooth500DeggestyThere are people who prefer to travel in civilized comfort and not be subjected to the many inconveniences that abound with travel by air. I couldn't agree with you more. When you need to get there in a hurry planes are great, but life doesn't always have to be about doing stuff in a hurry. Amtrak without a doubt is a far more pleasurable way to travel than being crammed into a small aluminum tube for a few hours. Yeah it takes longer but so what?
DeggestyThere are people who prefer to travel in civilized comfort and not be subjected to the many inconveniences that abound with travel by air.
The "so what" isn't the time but the subsidy. I'm sure there are a fair amount of folks who would prefer to take an civilized, spacious, ocean liner to Europe instead of flying, but there is no regular service because the cost of running an ocean liner are so much greater than airline service that nobody's in the market. Perhaps an "Amtrak of the Seas" would be able to provide service with a 50 cents on the dollar subsidy. Should we do that, too?
I think the trick to keeping the LD trains around is to improve their performance. I kind of doubt there is enough improvement to be had to bring the subsidies in line with that of other modes.
At the start of Amtrak, the supposition was that LD routes would be pared down and corridor services would be expanded so that the corridors' above the rails operating surplus could cross subsidize the few remaining LD trains. That never happened - for a variety of reasons.
Of course there's still one "regular service";
http://www.cunard.com/Destinations/default.asp?Sub=&Region=7
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Sawtooth500Also another idea would be instead of having a dedicated auto train route, what about trying to put a few auto-carrier cars on the back of an existing train like the california zephyr? Obviously you wouldn't want to unload cars at every stop, but possible at the major stops where the train has a little layover anyways (Chicago, Denver, Salt Lake, and Oakland). Now you say what about the unloading facilities? Well, what about them? For example, in Chicago Union Station, there is already auto access to the outmost track. Just pave over the track so that you can drive on the track and use a portable ramp to get the cars in. Yeah, it won't work for 26 auto carriers like they have on the auto train, but why not for 3 or 4? Just do it to test the idea....
I am generally opposed to LD service, but bringing back the private Auto-Train might work. It should not be such a big deal to load/unload the car-carriers. In Germany, on DB they offer an overnight Autozug (Motorail) on different routes. While waiting for a train to berlin at the relatively small Hamhurg Altona terminal station one morning, I saw an Autozug arrive from Italy. The car-carrier wagons unloaded on one track by driving the length of the coupled cars and off onto the main cross platform and then out on the street. It all occurred very quickly (10-15 minutes).
QM is a cruise and not a regular passenger service.
But the bigger question begged is, "does the world really want a liesurely, sophisticated, long distance (circle one or all: train, bus, ship, other) service? We have occasional special trips and tours, but on a regular basis, a "passenger service" basis? What kind of marketing would have to be done? I think as long as Amricans have to have it yesterday or the day before, or they have to have complete control of their own movement, then, rail will always be in the foreground of thought until such time as real intergrated transportation system is devised and marketed to them.
oltmanndSo, why no trans-Atlantic liner service anymore.
Sawtooth500The fact is long distance trains will always be slower than airplanes. But for leisure travel, why do you always have to be in a hurry? Make the travel a pleasure! That's why I'd rather take the train cross country than an airplane.
Long distance trains through the 40's were necessary, it was our lifestyle. The Eisenhower Interstate Highway System and the jet plane changed our lifestyle and the long distance train no longer fit. In most instances. The problem I have with supporting Amtrak and the passenger train is people who are trying to turn the clock back instead of ahead. HSR? Could be. A five day journey across country in a Pullman Car? Probably not. But. What if it were practical to schedule long distance trains so that they were marketable either as a fast intercity service on some segments? Or more liesurly sight seeing? Or an overnight alternative to rushing to get to a hotel to get some sleep and take on the next day's business? What is long distance? Burnswick, ME to NYC or Washington, DC or Miami? Or is it NYC to Chicago or CHicago to LA or SF or Seattle? Or should a long distance train work as the lifeline in areas where there are no good roads and airfields? Lets look at what services are needed, how they have to be designed, and what it would take to market them in a realistic way. Auto Train? Would that also be a good ride through the Rockies or is it just to get to and from Florida? We can't be stuck with the status quo, we can't drag up the past and use it as the present or the future, we must look at what the future needs and how to address it with rail service and not force feed railservice on the future.
Sawtooth500Commercial flying, just because of the nature of it, will never be as pleasurable as taking a train ride.
oltmanndIf we gave the airlines 50 cents on the dollar subsidy to increase the seat pitch and width to Amtrak standards, and put in a lounge and provide fresh grilled meals on real china, wouldn't that make flying more enjoyable? Should we do "Amtrak of the skies"?
Sawtooth500Amtrak without a doubt is a far more pleasurable way to travel than being crammed into a small aluminum tube for a few hours.
"So what" is correct when you are enjoying yourself. Train trips are to be enjoyed, and I don't remember one that I did not enjoy to some extent, even when there were problems. Most were enjoyable start to finish, including meals. There have been enjoyable plane trips but only a small percentage. Driving was a mixed bag depending on how pressed for time I was, nature of stopover places, and traffic woes.
aegrotatio DeggestyWould you prefer to travel from A to B by day, spend the night at B and repeat the process until you reach your destination? It would take four days instead of the current two days to go from Chicago or New Orleans to the West Coast. No. From your point A to final destination, I would prefer to fly, instead. I'm sorry but you may have missed my point.
DeggestyWould you prefer to travel from A to B by day, spend the night at B and repeat the process until you reach your destination? It would take four days instead of the current two days to go from Chicago or New Orleans to the West Coast.
No. From your point A to final destination, I would prefer to fly, instead. I'm sorry but you may have missed my point.
Johnny
henry6Maybe then find a way west to Hagerstown or Gettysburg then south.
aegrotatioLike Amtrak, I detest long-distance trains that require sleeping. Corridor trains are the practical solution. I'm still puzzled by this obsession with keeping trains that require more than a 12 or 14 hour sitting.
Would you prefer to travel from A to B by day, spend the night at B and repeat the process until you reach your destination? It would take four days instead of the current two days to go from Chicago or New Orleans to the West Coast.
My wife and I enjoy traveling by train, and we accept Amtrak as the company that provides passenger service. My wife does wish that bedroom berths were parallel to the window; she greatly enjoyed going from Vancouver to Moncton in drawing rooms last year (VIA 1 between Toronto and Montréal), sleeping in the lower by the window.
Maybe then find a way west to Hagerstown or Gettysburg then south. DC may be everything to politico's but not for railroads.
Since the economic performance of the Autotrain is not nearly as bad as the rest of the LD fleet, it would seem reasonable to look into Autotrain service on other routes as a means of stanching the flow of red ink.
The devil is in the details - routes and markets.
Where there are good markets, say near mid-west to FL, the existing routes stink. You can't deliver the trip speed you need to sell the service.
Where there are good routes, say some or all of the western trans-con routes, e.g. Chicago to Denver, there just isn't the market. (Comared to I-95, there is NOBODY on I-70 in Kansas.
The existing train would do better if the northern terminal allow one to avoid the worst driving on the route, namely I-95 north of DC. Yuck. The problem, once again, is routes, particularly getting from Alexandria to north of Baltimore.
aegrotatio Auto-Train had a huge repair problem when cracks were forming in the "new" auto carriers. Do those figure into the financials? Furthermore, even if they were warranty fixes, Amtrak has opted to pay for labor to get things fixed faster (like the bum concrete ties on the NEC). Like Amtrak, I detest long-distance trains that require sleeping. Corridor trains are the practical solution. I'm still puzzled by this obsession with keeping trains that require more than a 12 or 14 hour sitting.
Auto-Train had a huge repair problem when cracks were forming in the "new" auto carriers. Do those figure into the financials? Furthermore, even if they were warranty fixes, Amtrak has opted to pay for labor to get things fixed faster (like the bum concrete ties on the NEC).
Like Amtrak, I detest long-distance trains that require sleeping. Corridor trains are the practical solution. I'm still puzzled by this obsession with keeping trains that require more than a 12 or 14 hour sitting.
Whether we admit it or not, Amtrak is a political creature and this goes a long way in explaining why the long-distance trains are still operating. The Texas Eagle is probably the most recent example of such a political move. Another factor is the advocacy community, many of whom seem to believe that the immediate postwar period (1946-1955 or so) was some sort of "Golden Era" of passenger trains and want to maintain a level of service and amenities from that period. The 707 and DC-8 were introduced in 1958 and revolutionized commercial aviation, a factor that went a long way in taking passengers off the long-haul trains and trans-Atlantic liners.
henry6There are some spots near Belle Meade on the CSX, nee RDG, like abandoned industrial complexes and government grounds (abandoned: vacant,unused, wondering what they can bring in since there is no industry in the NE, no tax income anyway, decaying, eyesore, land) that would be an easy hour out of NYC, PHL, all of Northern Jersey and the extreme north east of PA by car... well....needs some marketing thought and sharp pencils in the hands of CSX....
Henry: You are correct. It appears to me that the demand for Auto Train service will grow with gasoline prices rising and transit times for the end points to be reduced. Once equipment is available (when?) there probably will be a splitting of the passenger cars and auto carriers first into separate trains (due to present CSX restriction of 50 cars). Then when Amtrak finds that enough automobiles originate from north of one of your examples above then Amtrak may acquire the property and develop it for a separate auto train.
However I suspect that CSX will have to be paid to add additional double track RICHMOND - Florence and the Virginia ave tunnel clearance in WASH will have to be raised for the auto carriers. I am not familiar enough of the route north of WASH to know if there are other clearance problems but we know the NEC doesn't have it yet!
Medical emergencies aboard Auto Train does not surprise me..."medical emergency" and "medical attention" are the most common reasons listed for train delays on the MTA, LIRR,and NJT delay reports after signal and equipment problems and "congestion". So, several times a week on A-T is not surprising.
Back to the top: Auto Train Company did try for NJ to FL service but congestion on the Corridor, high expense of real estate in NJ, and other cost factors literally drove them south to Lorton, VA. Even today I doubt there is room even on CSX from the Hudson Waterfront south to even think about real estate there. But now you got me thinking...as times have changed, etc, etc. There are some spots near Belle Meade on the CSX, nee RDG, like abandoned industrial complexes and government grounds (abandoned: vacant,unused, wondering what they can bring in since there is no industry in the NE, no tax income anyway, decaying, eyesore, land) that would be an easy hour out of NYC, PHL, all of Northern Jersey and the extreme north east of PA by car... well....needs some marketing thought and sharp pencils in the hands of CSX....
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.