https://www.insider.com/review-amtrak-train-new-york-chicago-2021-7
Well, the guy sure can whine. If he wants to get to Chicago cheaply and quickly, fly for $70 (his quote); why on earth would he spend $500 just to try Amtrak at a known time of 19 hours in a room that is fully described as being certain dimensions?
Because Insider pays for content/junk news.
Rick
rixflix aka Captain Video. Blessed be Jean Shepherd and all His works!!! Hooray for 1939, the all time movie year!!! I took that ride on the Reading but my Baby caught the Katy and left me a mule to ride.
rixflix Because Insider pays for content/junk news. Rick
Have you ridden the LSL?
What I find amusing is that he complains about how cramped a roomette is and how he can't walk around. Has he flown any time in this century? I guess he was expecting the Orient Express
Big difference. 19 hours vs 2.
His age group is not exactly Amtraks target market for sleeping cars. However, given what I pay on the Texas Eagle for RT Roomette $600-650. His price of $500 one way sounds rather steep.
If Amtrak chooses the Simens Economy sleeper design he will probably get a coach seat plus sleeping car accomodations because the Siemens economy sleeper you can't stand up in......it's so small, the most you can hope to do is situp in bed.
Rode the Orient Express Vienna - Paris. Could not "walk around" in my single-bed compartment either. Nor on the Blue Train Praetoria - Johanessburg - Cape Town.
John at end-of hallway.
$500?
daveklepperRode the Orient Express Vienna - Paris. Could not "walk around" in my single-bed compartment either. Nor on the Blue Train Praetoria - Johanessburg - Cape Town. John at end-of hallway.
Americans are square footage spoiled when it comes to hotel rooms.
It wasn't always this way, the first railroad hotels had tiny sq foot rooms in the upper floors of their depots, look at all the former CP Rail hotels (now Fairmont) in Canada, their upper floor old building hotel rooms are tiny as well. I think it was something that started in the move to suburban homes in the 1950's and grew worse from there. It's horrible in North Dallas. Small homes start at 2,000 sq feet, average is close to 4,000 sq feet for a family of four. I live next to some 5,000-7,000 sq foot homes, some with a guest house or stable (Parker, TX - Home of Southfork Ranch from TV Series "Dallas"). Sell for $3-5 million each. Looks like they belong in Bel-Air, CA.
You don't ride a train to look at TV....this guy HAS to be entertained or he dies. Try looking out the WINDOW....I find it interesting even at night....turn off the lights, close the drapes, pour a glass of Gran Mariner....and let your mind wander. It's wonderful. And yes, i've taken the LSL from both Boston and NY, and loved both the Berkshires and the Hudson....is this guy brain dead? Can't he figure out what to do if he's not in a theater?
I admit that the shoe box lunches drove me away and I opted for a the Emporer's room on the Canadian, but alas, COVID kept me home. I will not ride AMTRK until I can eat...full stop. I am longing for the Canadian before I die. I hope I make it.
GN-Fan: Exactly! The whole travel experience is not about getting from point A to point B, the space & time in between can be amazingly full of new information for you to process, think about, ponder, qustion, etc. I have spent most of several nights in the dome car of the Canadian in the dozen or so trips on her, mezmerized by the train's lights revealing our passage through woods, fields, mountain passes, tunnels and towns: that is the icing on the cake. An open minded observer tends to be more empathetic, less judgemental and a whole lot more interesting to talk with than one who is locked into their travel bubble: at least that is my travel experience.
Just recently we rode in a roomette on the Cardinal, and we loved it. I even thought the food was okay.
To me it's all about having your own space and looking out the window. I didn't even read at all, just looked out the window.
Admittedly, it helps to be a railfan!
Still in training.
GN_FanYou don't ride a train to look at TV....this guy HAS to be entertained or he dies. Try looking out the WINDOW....I find it interesting even at night....turn off the lights, close the drapes, pour a glass of Gran Mariner....and let your mind wander. It's wonderful. And yes, i've taken the LSL from both Boston and NY, and loved both the Berkshires and the Hudson....is this guy brain dead? Can't he figure out what to do if he's not in a theater?
Is telling people how they should enjoy a trip a great way to promote that way of travel, though? If someone wants to watch Netflix, then that is perfectly ok.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
northeaster GN-Fan: Exactly! The whole travel experience is not about getting from point A to point B, the space & time in between can be amazingly full of new information for you to process, think about, ponder, qustion, etc. I have spent most of several nights in the dome car of the Canadian in the dozen or so trips on her, mezmerized by the train's lights revealing our passage through woods, fields, mountain passes, tunnels and towns: that is the icing on the cake. An open minded observer tends to be more empathetic, less judgemental and a whole lot more interesting to talk with than one who is locked into their travel bubble: at least that is my travel experience.
Travel experiences? For the elderly and railfans fans. We are talking taxpayer subsidized transportation. If you want a land cruise, see if a for profit company will make a go of it. I doubt if many on here are interested in paying the true cost.
Airports and air traffic control are paid for with taxpayer dollars. Highways are built by government. Canals are ...
Very stale whaadaboutisms.
Dragging in subsidies to other modes of transport is a tired old strawman. As your dear mother taught you, "Two wrongs don't make a right." Airlines should pay the full cost of the the air traffic control system and landing fees should cover costs and fees of building and operating airports, trucks and buses should be taxed to cover the disproportionate damage they do to highways and roads, barge operators should pay the money the Corps of Engineers spends maintaining waterways and the Coast Guard spends on aids to navigation, oxcarts should pay for....hmm, that's a tough one. Unfortunately, the last prominent politician to attempt to make people pay for what they use (cleverly called "user fees") rather than looting general revenues was Ronald Reagan and the usual forces defeated him. I like riding trains, I also like sailing and held a private pilot's license (that ended when insurance went through the roof - lawyers have many sins to atone for) but I agree with Charlie and Randal O'Toole, other people shouldn't have to pay for my hobbies. Read
Romance of the Rails: Why the Passenger Trains We Love Are Not the Transportation We Need: O'Toole, Randal: 9781944424947: Amazon.com: Books
And lest you dismiss O'Toole as a crank, let me point out that he is a card carrying railfan who volunteered on the SP&S #700 restoration project
Randal O'Toole - Wikipedia
BEAUSABREDragging in subsidies to other modes of transport is a tired old strawman. As your dear mother taught you, "Two wrongs don't make a right." Airlines should pay the full cost of the the air traffic control system and landing fees should cover costs and fees of building and operating airports, trucks and buses should be taxed to cover the disproportionate damage they do to highways and roads, barge operators should pay the money the Corps of Engineers spends maintaining waterways and the Coast Guard spends on aids to navigation, oxcarts should pay for....hmm, that's a tough one. Unfortunately, the last prominent politician to attempt to make people pay for what they use (cleverly called "user fees") rather than looting general revenues was Ronald Reagan and the usual forces defeated him.
One could argue effectively the role of subsidies by government is to expedite GDP growth. One could also argue they play a heavy role in build-up to World Wars like WWII that would not otherwise take place with just private spending. While it is true we could probably rely entirely on the free enterprise system for airline, road construction, and freight railroads. We would all be speaking German right now had that been our approach prior to a pending World War. Also the problem you run into with that approach is we would not be competitive with other countries (German autobahn), that spend tax money on their modes of transportation and we would fall behind in technology as well as GDP growth. Precisely why infrastructure spending is part of most economic stimulus plans. It is not only to jump start spending in the depressed economy but it is also to remain at the same level or to catch up from a behind position vis a vis other countries we are competing with.
In many parts of this country we started with a totally privately financed road system based on tolls. Where it failed was ongoing maintenence as well as substandard construction practices. Most of the toll road companies went bankrupt or were quickly sold to the local or state governments once the railroads started to build up along their routes. Like the stage coach, what the toll roads had to charge in comparison to railroad passenger fares was too steep and the traveling public flocked to the cheaper passenger trains. I know this view will not be popular on a TRAINS forum but it is true. You can read it in regards to the history of the Watertown Plank Road as well as reading various settlers letters on stage lines and the fares they charged in comparison to railroad fares.
What is really interesting is many of the businessmen and investors in the early Plank road just switched over to railroads. Watertown Plank Road investor was Mr. Mitchell (extended family of USAF Billy Mitchell fame). He switched over to the Milwaukee Road and helped finance and expand it as did some of his co-investors (probably another reason it's route tended to follow the Watertown Plank Road).
I remember reading a news article about fares between Fond Du Lac, WI and Sheboygan. The C&NW fare was like $2.00 or something and the stage coach fare was more than three times as much. This was shortly after the Fond Du Lac to Sheboygan line opened. So the difference was a lot of money back then.
What actually reversed the above and transformed highways and roads as well as airlines to be more convienent and more accessible was massive Federal investment in the airport system via build-up to WWII as well as the public road system investment 1920-1960. Interstate Highway system after WWII. It was the convienece and accessibility of airline and automobile travel that got people to switch in large numbers from the passenger train. Most of that development of airports, roads, and highways and improvement of them was direct taxpayer investment. Not to mention that post World War II, there was a huge surplus of military transports, already built airports for training pilots....... that could readily be converted to airliners, city airports, as well as pent up savings demand for auto purchases. So post WWII things really headed South for the rail passenger train. Government spending on railroads and private railroad investment in the few post WWII streamliners was miniscule in comparison to what was spent before, during and after the war on transports, airports, roads and then after WWII the Interstate Highway System.
Sorry but most of your examples are not analogous.
Another way to look at it... The railroad is a centralizing technology. The automobile/truck is a decentralizing technology.
I do find it rather interesting that when the massive transport spending was directed at the railroad industry, the populace largely abandoned competing modes of transport and flocked to them. When the situation was reversed the reverse happened. Seems to me there is a cause and effect there.
charlie hebdo Very stale whaadaboutisms.
"Stale" because they are so obvious and true, people have been repeating them for years.
No passener rail system in the world is profitable. Yet great, productive modern countries deem passenger trains a vital part of the transportation mix. Countries like Germany, Great Britain, France, Japan, etc. These nations give passenger rail a fair shake.
CMStPnPIn many parts of this country we started with a totally privately financed road system based on tolls. Where it failed was ongoing maintenence as well as substandard construction practices. Most of the toll road companies went bankrupt or were quickly sold to the local or state governments once the railroads started to build up along their routes.
For example, at least one careful discussion has been made about 'what if the "consume its own smoke" requirement in the Rainhill Trials had become a standard requirement in England'? For powerplants that has been extended into several detailed discussions where CO2 emission was treated as a pollutant (and this developed into a substantial part of the actual clean-coal initiative). It now appears there is a growing swell of initiative not for a renewable-carbon future, but for a full zero-carbon approach wherever 'practicable'. Had that been historically implemented, some very different development pressure over the years would have been observed...
Likewise many of the original railroads were built on the 'turnpike principle', notably the early Pennsylvania approach with 'run what ya brung' wagons (just bring an extra set of flanged wheels for compatibility if you like!) -- the one with the post at the center of sections between turnouts that caused so many teamsters to 'lay on the leather' as one account of the affair said. One might consider the contemporary developments in Britain regarding light steam road power (cf. Goldsworthy Gurney) and decide whether economic incentives practiced by non-Jacksonian types might have enabled enough development to make individual-vehicle power a possibility... as would later become the case here with generations and generations of "discarded" road vehicles and their equipment being available. The use of homemade 'critters' and various Galloping-Ghost solutions was not restricted to poor railroads or ingenious crackpots; it might easily have been adapted to a world of 'iron ocean' track systems. What it would not have provided -- initially -- would be the enormous economies of scale provided by, say, the Winans antifriction wheel in some kind of brake-practical suspension, which I'd argue would have led first to the adoption of larger and larger consists behind a given prime mover and then to the pushing-out of smaller operators in favor of those with larger... ahh... locomotives. Eventually culminating in the specialization of power in (relatively) large purpose-built tractor units, and the likely concentration of ownership of these devices by large shipping companies or consortia... who at some point would find it possible or advantageous to 'privatize' at least some of the ROWs they operated under...
etc. There's more discussion possible, but I have no time now.
Lithonia OperatorNo passener rail system in the world is profitable
Sweeping generalization which happens to also be untrue.
CMstPnP - OK, when you make claims like that, ya gotta back it up. Segments of certain foreign passenger operations may make money, but the entire system? There's a reason that railroads in most of the world are part of the government or heavily subsidized. Certainly, the recieved wisdom in North America is that freight underwrote passenger service, which lost money. The fact that governments need to underwrite AMTRAK, VIA and the various commuter agencies would seem to bear that out. Railroads ran passenger service even though they lost money because 1) they felt they had a public duty to offer it ("the public utility concept") as long as they made large profits on freight 2) Their charters required them to offer it 3) Regulatory agencies wouldn't let them get rid of it 4) Because pride in the executive suite in passenger service overcame fiduciary duty to the shareholders (Notably SOU and ATSF after AMTRAK was formed) 5) Inertia ("We've always offered passenger service and it's unthinkable for us not to" - or as B&O's president put it "We sold the first train ticket in America and, if it comes to that, we'll sell the last")
BEAUSABRECMstPnP - OK, when you make claims like that, ya gotta back it up. Segments of certain foreign passenger operations may make money, but the entire system?
DB the German rail system turned a profit in 2019 and earns more than twice as much as BNSF in revenue in 2019 (2019 Revenues: $48.12 Billion). Germany only covers a geographic area slightly smaller than Montana but DB carries roughly 151 million passengers a year. I believe DB passenger trains are able to travel beyond German borders now to an extent. Not 100% sure on that but I thought I read an article they can travel cross border now.
BTW, Mixing Freight with Passenger trains wasn't done necessarily to make the passenger train viable in this country......which is a common misconception in these forums held by some people. It was done from the very beginning to make the new railroad line viable by maximizing the profitability of each train run over the road. Go back in history and look at some of the head end freight carried by some of those very early 1800's passenger trains. I know in 1870-1880's the Houston and Texas Central used to run a Passenger Train called "The Dallas Morning News". It's primary head end cargo was newspapers to distribute up the line as far as Sherman, TX from Dallas, TX. Money from the DMN paid a chunk of it's operating costs I am sure. Mixed in with the papers were packages from department and hardware/implement stores in Dallas via catalog ordering. Empty milk cans, etc. This was before the REA was started. All new lines had were maybe 1-2 passenger trains running over them initially, I believe freight slowly grew after line opening for a lot of the granger lines.
I am sure there was a point where passenger trains started to lose money during their mid-life crisis in which the Class I's started to fund their losses, though I think the whole goal of buying streamliner equipment in the 1950's was to make the service more appealing and self-sufficient cost wise. Hence low maintenence materials were emphasized such as stainless steel, woodgrain formica, vinyl floor tiles, etc.
It should be noted that DB has a very profitable freight subsidiary operating trains, and not just within Germany. Additionally. the various Länder subsidize passenger operations. Some of the many ICE routes do turn a profit, same as our NEC.
CMStPnP BEAUSABRE CMstPnP - OK, when you make claims like that, ya gotta back it up. Segments of certain foreign passenger operations may make money, but the entire system? DB the German rail system turned a profit in 2019
BEAUSABRE CMstPnP - OK, when you make claims like that, ya gotta back it up. Segments of certain foreign passenger operations may make money, but the entire system?
DB the German rail system turned a profit in 2019
DB is a passenger/freight/logistics company. How can you compare that to Amtrak? Post a link to something that shows the passenger division, as a whole (not just certain routes), making a profit.
Lithonia OperatorDB is a passenger/freight/logistics company. How can you compare that to Amtrak? Post a link to something that shows the passenger division, as a whole (not just certain routes), making a profit.
DB states it's revenues and profits by each division. I don't know why you cannot find that information yourself. It's really not hard.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.