QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Is that from Chic to Milw on that day room? [:o)][:)] Hopefully you are aware that the main reason the interstate system was even built was so we can easily move very heavy military equipment from point A to point B most quickly. If you check out the law that enabled the I system you will find that EVERY underpass has to be I think 15'8" below the overpass so that large equipment like tanks & APV & things like that can pass underneath safely.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Originally posted by oltmannd Originally posted by spbed [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 8:56 AM H'mm you best get a life. A forum is a place to express your opinion & that is what I am doing about A/trak. What I posted about costs are correct. As I said I am flying from FLL to Omaha to only watch trains. Now what does make me incurring a cost to fly 1,600 miles just to watch trains? [:o)][:)][:p] Originally posted by Deni Originally posted by spbed Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 8:44 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Is that from Chic to Milw on that day room? [:o)][:)] Take me for a instant. I live in the lower SE & say to get to Chic by train would be a day or more. Airplane 4 1/2 hours including 1 hour drive time to & from the airport. Yes airlines such as Delta & United & US Air are in deep doo-doo from past giveaways when times were good. But el cheapo airlines such as SW, Jet Blue, Spirit are doing quite well. As a example I am going shortly from FLL to Omaha Mapquest says that is 3,200 miles round trip & I am paying only $120.00 for the R/T ticket or less then $0.04 per mile. Mapquest further says by car it is 25 hours vs air about 7 with the L/O in Chicago. As I have said the few that will give up hours for a train are in my opinion quite few & far between. [:o)][:D][:p] Hopefully you are aware that the main reason the interstate system was even built was so we can easily move very heavy military equipment from point A to point B most quickly. If you check out the law that enabled the I system you will find that EVERY underpass has to be I think 15'8" below the overpass so that large equipment like tanks & APV & things like that can pass underneath safely. [:o)][:D][:p] No matter in my opinion outside of the NEC train travel in the USA is for the few not the many sorry to say. [:p][:D] Originally posted by jimitimi Why would someone who obviously hates trains post in a train forum? It boggles the mind.... Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Amtrak fares too low? Posted by oltmannd on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 7:41 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Sorry no those "baby" boomer's grew up using jets so they will not graviate to trains in my opinion. For them hopping on a plane & being at their destination in just a few small hours is like hopping in your car & getting the AM newspaper. That is why I say that outside of the NEC A/trak patronage will continue to fall not increase so it will constantly need more & more $$$$$ as the years go by. [:o)][:D] Originally posted by dldance Originally posted by spbed This arguement is fataly flawed. The generation that knew nothing but rail for intercity travel abandoned it in a heartbeat for air and auto in the late 40s and 50s. Why? In part, because flying and driving were the "new thing" and the culture valued (and still values) "new and improved" over "old and tradtional". After 100 years of riding trains, people were ready for a change. The train was definitely not "space age". Us boomers grew up with flying and driving as the norm - just as we view suburban living as the norm. Neither seems particularly "fun" in it's own right. The Sunday Drive is a thing of the past. The idea of taking a train anywhere was a bad joke for most of the 1970s (with the exception of the NEC, perhaps). In the mid 70s, if you told someone you were taking a train somewhere, they'd ask why, not out of curiousity, but to question your sanity! Johnny Carson even used "Amtrak Breath" as an epithet on his show. What's happened since then, is that Amtrak has gotten much better and taking the train actually seems interesting and "new" to those who grew up with cars and planes. You don't get quite the strange looks now that you did back in the 70s when you told people you were taking the train. Trains have actually become "the new thing". Just look at California. The people who are riding the corridors in California and the NEC are not WWII vets who grew up with trains, but those born in the 60s and 70s who never gave trains a second thought growing up. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 7:16 AM Sorry no those "baby" boomer's grew up using jets so they will not graviate to trains in my opinion. For them hopping on a plane & being at their destination in just a few small hours is like hopping in your car & getting the AM newspaper. That is why I say that outside of the NEC A/trak patronage will continue to fall not increase so it will constantly need more & more $$$$$ as the years go by. [:o)][:D] Originally posted by dldance Originally posted by spbed Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 7:09 AM Is that from Chic to Milw on that day room? [:o)][:)] Take me for a instant. I live in the lower SE & say to get to Chic by train would be a day or more. Airplane 4 1/2 hours including 1 hour drive time to & from the airport. Yes airlines such as Delta & United & US Air are in deep doo-doo from past giveaways when times were good. But el cheapo airlines such as SW, Jet Blue, Spirit are doing quite well. As a example I am going shortly from FLL to Omaha Mapquest says that is 3,200 miles round trip & I am paying only $120.00 for the R/T ticket or less then $0.04 per mile. Mapquest further says by car it is 25 hours vs air about 7 with the L/O in Chicago. As I have said the few that will give up hours for a train are in my opinion quite few & far between. [:o)][:D][:p] Hopefully you are aware that the main reason the interstate system was even built was so we can easily move very heavy military equipment from point A to point B most quickly. If you check out the law that enabled the I system you will find that EVERY underpass has to be I think 15'8" below the overpass so that large equipment like tanks & APV & things like that can pass underneath safely. [:o)][:D][:p] No matter in my opinion outside of the NEC train travel in the USA is for the few not the many sorry to say. [:p][:D] Originally posted by jimitimi Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 6:42 AM If you could ride a fast train to Chicago from Popular Bluff, MO in less than 3 hours, why would anyone fly? The coach seats are larger than first class seats on an airliner, oops, Southwest doesn't have first class, and there is a diner and lounge car to relax in......with a much better view of the countryside..... With a HSR train service able to run a Dallas to Chicago route in 6-7 hours, and be able to offer three times the frequency of our now daily service, you wouldn't have to wake up before dawn to catch the train or arrive home near midnight.... Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 5:16 AM first of all. not all trains in europe are high speed. the dutch run there stuff at about 90 mph. they use flyovers to avoid slowing trains leaving the stations at the same time going to different destinations. They also run like clockwork and can because the distances between stops is MUCH smaller than in the states. Yes gas is much higher but the trains are running on a timely schedule and arealmost always on time. It's very easy to figure out when you need to leave and what train goes where. This also leads to easy connections with other trains. But best of all you can ask any conductor for a ticket for any destination in Europe and get a price, what train or trains you need just like airline reservations!! The conductors carry a palm pilot like device that links with the transit database. Works real well. Reply Edit nobullchitbids Member sinceFebruary 2012 257 posts Posted by nobullchitbids on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 2:40 AM Here, Here, mate! Los Angeles once had a system similar to what you describe, the "Big Red Cars" of the Pacific Electric, and the last time I was there (some 30 years ago), some of the freeways still had the right-of-way in the middle clearly visible (the freeways actually followed the rail lines during the expansion after the World War). But, the Big Red Cars are long gone: Back around 1950, General Motors decided that, if the cars disappeared, more people would have to buy automobiles; so, GM subsidized a bus company to come in and drive PE out of business, then dropped its subsidization so that the bus company had to cut back its service as well. By then, most of the Big Reds had been torched. Some of the wiser supervisors objected at the time that the loss of PE and transformation to an all-auto society would bathe LA in air pollution, but GM officials glibly told the majority on the board that they had nothing to worry about! Needless to say, it was not long before LA was the smog capital of the world. GM, however, did have several stellar years. More recently, I believe several commuter operations in the Chicago and Cleveland areas were able to operate successfully because the rail lines did parallel the freeways, and management was able to advertise against all of those "suckers" sitting in the impassable lines of traffic during rush hour. So, yes, there are markets here for commuter and light rail, but the problem still remains: How to get to the ultimate destination? If there are not good bus connections at both ends, given the size of American cities, the railroads simply cannot offer the service the public needs. City governments looking to increase use of alternative modes of transportation do need to think in terms of such an integrated approach, and when they do, they have to think in terms of whether an all-bus line is better than a bus-rail combination. Reply Bulbous Member sinceJune 2004 9 posts Posted by Bulbous on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 1:47 AM The real wonder is that the cost to the government of the interstate system seems to be over looked, but the cost of a national rail system is too much to bear? I live in australia, and the problem here is the same, with people not caring about roads being built, but if you spend the same amount of money on passenger rail, then everyone complains that it is not well spent. They all fail to realise that the roads will probably not need expansion due to the thousands of people who will now travel by a competitive rail alternative...... the above is because in Perth, we are building rail lines down the centre of our freeways, with stations at all the major interchanges, and this is great advertising for the system when the trains fly past the people stuck in traffic jams...... :) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, April 25, 2005 10:12 PM North America is unique in its subsidies of airlines, air controllers, airports & screening personnel, minuscule landing fees; vs property taxes, a freight oriented mentality ( Pandora's Box in itself), the sacred cow of speed being essential, an administration that backs up air service no matter what while essentially ignoring rail service, freight schedules that DO delay passenger trains, only one Auto-train - - - and that is just scraping the surface. True costs and efficiencies need homework to be revealed. And how many are in favor of putting a lot of those Interstate-hogging semis on the railroad? No one likes to wait in line to be screened, sit in a seat made for midgets, go through boaring and deplaning like a herd of catle, to ride in a cigar-shaped dehumanizing vehicle. They do it because they are in a hurry. And they have to give a little on the speed end when the weather is uncooperative, when some bean-counter disallows connections between flights because of said weather delays and lets people go whistle until the next flight. Great way to live if you like association with sardines. Edna St. Vincent Millay is not the only one who enjoys trains, for many, many reasons. JD McFarland Reply Edit UPTRAIN Member sinceJune 2002 From: Independence, MO 1,570 posts Posted by UPTRAIN on Monday, April 25, 2005 9:35 PM Southwest Airlines is still cheaper between St. Louis and Chicago than Amtrak is from Poplar Bluff, MO to Chicago. Pump Reply nobullchitbids Member sinceFebruary 2012 257 posts Posted by nobullchitbids on Monday, April 25, 2005 8:42 PM The real issue re passenger rail service to some extent has nothing to do with fares or subsidies. Indeed, Connecticut recently did a study of its commuter and Amtrak services and concluded that, to the extent cost be the only issue, it would be cheaper to kill the subsidies (which would kill the trains) and buy all the riders cars or vans. Compared to highway use and highway options, the ridership is limited, and then there is the problem of setting up and paying for the final leg of the journey (which probably is nowhere near a train station). Amtrak is far more expensive than Metro, and to some extent the fares are silly, given one can take a subsidized bus for as little as a tenth of the cost of a train ticket (downside: trip does take longer). But, in the end, what many of the politicians will look at is whether we really want all of those additional cars and vans clogging the roads? If the environmentalists whine louder than the taxpayers, it is obvious what legislatures will do. Reply DSchmitt Member sinceSeptember 2003 From: California - moved to North Carolina 2018 4,422 posts Posted by DSchmitt on Monday, April 25, 2005 8:22 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by morseman No mention in this forum comparing Via Rail & Amtrak Several months ago I compared prices for a trip from Toronto to VCancouver on Via with a trip on the same dates from Philadelphia to Vancouver. Price was nearly double on Via even taking into account the exchange on the Cdn/US dollar. Booked Amtrak but had to cancel account our travelling companions became sick. Just got back from Amtrak trip Philly-Ft.Lauderdale. Train was packed both directions, Meals were much improved, Found price quite reasonable. Most passengers in sleepers were 30-50 Yrs old . My wife and I will continue to take one or two Amtrak tripa a year and quite often include it with a cruise. Interesting: the fare on Via compared to Amtrak. One of the excuses for Amtrak fares low is the low cost of gasoline in the USA. I believe the cost of gas in Canada is not much higher than in the US. I started this thread to get people thinking about Amtrak's fares, and whether they could be increased. Would increasing fares allow reduced subsidies and/or provide money needed to improve the system? Would, as some have suggested, there be such a large decrease in ridership that loses would be higher? Is it possible that while there would be an initial loss of riders, it would not be a permanent loss? I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it. I don't have a leg to stand on. Reply jimitimi Member sinceApril 2003 From: Andover, MN 33 posts Posted by jimitimi on Monday, April 25, 2005 8:03 PM I am only 40 and travel A/trak whenever possible when I need to go to Milwaukee or Chicago. The price is reasonable and I even get a "day" room as the meals are included and they are more comfortable. Until the Bush and Mineta Circus Act leaves town and gets realistic and gets off their "the states will pay" issue rail service will continue to drag along without any mandate. Let's look at the rail system as a SYSTEM and invest in it like the 1950's Defense Interstate Highway SYSTEM and we'd have high speed competetive trains running all over the country! The midwest HSR plan looks like a great way to go. I see the projections call for profitable incremental cost operation as long as the infrastructure is funded. Then charge a fare that covers the marginal costs and we'd be in business. As far as I last checked, the airline industry isn't exactly printing money, rather hemorraging red ink! Reply DSchmitt Member sinceSeptember 2003 From: California - moved to North Carolina 2018 4,422 posts Posted by DSchmitt on Monday, April 25, 2005 7:59 PM to thefox I chose San Francisco as the starting point because it is the major well known city closest to my home, therefore they are train trips I might take. The fares were for: California Zephyr to Salt Lake City Coast Starlight to Seattle Coast Starlight to Los Angeles None are Amtrak California trains. The Amtrak California trains are: Pacific Surfliner San Luis Opispo-San Diego, San Jauquins, Oakland-Stockton-Bakersfield, Sacramento-Stockton-Bakersfield Capitol Corridor, Auburn-Sacramento-Oakland-San Jose plus connecting buses in each case I was hoping that someone might be able to come up with subsidy information for European trains to compare with Amtrak. Another question is: How do the costs compare with peoples income in the Europe and in the US? I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it. I don't have a leg to stand on. Reply morseman Member sinceJuly 2004 From: Ontario - Canada 463 posts Posted by morseman on Monday, April 25, 2005 7:42 PM No mention in this forum comparing Via Rail & Amtrak Several months ago I compared prices for a trip from Toronto to VCancouver on Via with a trip on the same dates from Philadelphia to Vancouver. Price was nearly double on Via even taking into account the exchange on the Cdn/US dollar. Booked Amtrak but had to cancel account our travelling companions became sick. Just got back from Amtrak trip Philly-Ft.Lauderdale. Train was packed both directions, Meals were much improved, Found price quite reasonable. Most passengers in sleepers were 30-50 Yrs old . My wife and I will continue to take one or two Amtrak tripa a year and quite often include it with a cruise. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, April 25, 2005 7:18 PM geoffrey: don't judge Amtrak by the Sunset Limited... longest route=longest time to become late. And often times they [Amtrak] can't help it, it's the freight railroad's fault. To anyone else: Some people (e.g. U.S. pres, and his sec of transportation, Mineta) seem to think that the NE Corridor is profitable. On a day to day basis (this was before Acela got taken off the rails) yeah it is. However, over a period of time, say a year, maintenance costs still turn it into a negative profit. No railroad (or commuter rail, etc.) in the world (except maybe a luxury railroad that's not really about transportation) is actually profitable over a any real period of time. In fact the longer routes on Amtrak have shown that they make closer to breaking even (still a long shot) than the NE corridor. Why do you think the railroads wanted to unload passenger service in the first place? Privatization is definitely not the way to go. Why choose Amtrak at all? One big reason for me, I have been cross-continent MANY times by train and plane (and I'm not that old either) and I saw a heck of lot more of the continent and learned more by train than by plane. Finally, I don't remember who started the thread, but..... You can't use Amtrak California fares to compare Amtrak to anything except Amtrak California itself. They are different genres entirely in terms of fares and service, etc. In my opinion the premise of this thread was fairly ridiculous to start with. The fares are already high enough to turn many potential riders away. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, April 25, 2005 6:48 PM Gas in Europe at double the price of the USA ?- I wish-- The price of Unleaded Gas in Britain is nearly $10.00 PER GALLON. Road tax on my car is $350.00 per year. I was in Las Vegas in Febuary and paid around $1.92 a gallon. Tax on Gas is Around 70% here. Some rail journeys ie Manchester to London return cost around $300 return with Virgin for a total return mileage of around 390 miles. Having said all of that we had tickets from New Orleans for the return leg of 'The Sunset Ltd' to Orlando in February last year for a train that was 27 Hours late and turned into a bus. We won't be travelling with Amtrak again. Reply Edit darth9x9 Member sinceDecember 2002 From: US 665 posts Posted by darth9x9 on Monday, April 25, 2005 6:06 PM Comparing the fares of Amtrak to those in Europe is like comparing apples to oranges. More American's own cars per capita than Europeans. Also America's infrastructure favors the car where as Europe's favors rail. Americans have always loved their cars and the nation has dramatically catered to the automobile since WWII. On the other hand after WWII, Europe had little to no infrastructure with all of the destruction from the war. Europe decided to build a rail network - it was easy (easier) back then. I have spent several years in Europe and I love to travel by rail in Europe. They have trains that go most everywhere you need to and if not, a short cab ride will get you to your destination. The other thing is that the trains run frequently in Europe. And don't be one minute late for catching your train or you WILL be chasing it down the platform! Bill Carl (modeling Chessie and predecessors from 1973-1983) Member of Four County Society of Model Engineers NCE DCC Master Visit the FCSME at www.FCSME.org Modular railroading at its best! If it has an X in it, it sucks! And yes, I just had my modeler's license renewed last week! Reply dldance Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Near Promentory UT 1,590 posts Posted by dldance on Monday, April 25, 2005 4:09 PM Originally posted by spbed My theroy is as the elderly go to another place A/trak patronage will decrease as well as todays "baby" boomers or the next elderly come from the jet age not like todays elderly who came before the jet age & for the mosy part were afraid to fly. [:o)][8D] Interesting theory - but us "baby boomers" are just approaching our "Amtrak" years. The demographic of early/near retired people is the fastest growing demographic in North American and will be for the next 10 years. These are the ones with the money and the time to ride Amtrak. dd Reply Simon Reed Member sinceMarch 2005 From: Sulzerland, UK 337 posts Posted by Simon Reed on Monday, April 25, 2005 2:08 PM As a British lover of American passenger rail, I'd say unequivocally yes, Amtrak fares are lower than European fares over a comparable distance, but commuter rail fares are also lower by the same comparison. I'm not sure what that indicates other than possibly a difference in perceptions of the price the passenger is prepared to pay. I would, however, absolutely disagree with any suggestion that people in the US travel by rail because they either can't afford to fly or are of a generation which regards flying with concern or alarm. I've done the best part of 20,000 miles on Amtrak and would say that the vast majority of passengers on long distance services are travelling by rail because they WANT to. The American people I've met on, say, the Sunset or Empire Builder have been people with sufficient means to fly, but enough spare time to travel by rail and watch their country going by the window. Maybe many of the people who fall into that category are retired, thereby creating the impression that Amtrak is a resort of the elderly, but retirement and the free time and financial independence to take the train will hopefully come to us all. It's an infinately renewable market. I wonder to what degree Amtrak's farebox woes would be lessened by jacking up long distance fares to a "European" level whilst aggressively marketing the train as a leisure commodity to those rich in both cash and time - i.e. the domestic senior market and the independently minded European/Australasian traveller. A national passenger rail infrastructure - even one as moribund and fragmented as yours - is a national asset. I sincerely hope to be riding Amtrak for many years yet, and for your sake as well as mine. Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Monday, April 25, 2005 1:18 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Thanks so todays tix price is beyond the cost of a tix in 76 using todays money[:o)][:D] Originally posted by oltmannd Three times over! -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, April 25, 2005 12:35 PM My theroy is as the elderly go to another place A/trak patronage will decrease as well as todays "baby" boomers or the next elderly come from the jet age not like todays elderly who came before the jet age & for the mosy part were afraid to fly. [:o)][8D] Originally posted by Muddy Creek Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, April 25, 2005 12:30 PM Thanks so todays tix price is beyond the cost of a tix in 76 using todays money[:o)][:D] Originally posted by oltmannd Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply dldance Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Near Promentory UT 1,590 posts Posted by dldance on Monday, April 25, 2005 12:00 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by Muddy Creek QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Sure you may have seen a few "young" persons but in general those "young" people who use the train are a on vast minority to more elderly riders. Though my experience tells me otherwise, assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, may I respectfully ask, "So what?" Wayne I agree. So what? My own anecdotal experience with LD trains has been young people in the coaches, old people in the sleepers. A year ago, on a trip in a coach on the Crescent, I was just about the oldest guy in the coach at 48! My experience on the Cardinal and the Texas Eagle last month was about the same - young in coach and older in sleepers -- and both trains were full. The Cardinal had been overbooked in coach from Indianapolis to Chicago. dd Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Monday, April 25, 2005 11:12 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by Muddy Creek QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Sure you may have seen a few "young" persons but in general those "young" people who use the train are a on vast minority to more elderly riders. Though my experience tells me otherwise, assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, may I respectfully ask, "So what?" Wayne I agree. So what? My own anecdotal experience with LD trains has been young people in the coaches, old people in the sleepers. A year ago, on a trip in a coach on the Crescent, I was just about the oldest guy in the coach at 48! -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Monday, April 25, 2005 11:10 AM No math whiz needed. Just use gov't CPI calculator http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm $5.25 in 1976 = $17.84 in 2005 I think Amtrak has (or at least had, in recent history) a cost control issue. -Don -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, April 25, 2005 10:33 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Sure you may have seen a few "young" persons but in general those "young" people who use the train are a on vast minority to more elderly riders. Though my experience tells me otherwise, assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, may I respectfully ask, "So what?" Wayne Reply Edit 123 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Originally posted by spbed [ Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 8:56 AM H'mm you best get a life. A forum is a place to express your opinion & that is what I am doing about A/trak. What I posted about costs are correct. As I said I am flying from FLL to Omaha to only watch trains. Now what does make me incurring a cost to fly 1,600 miles just to watch trains? [:o)][:)][:p] Originally posted by Deni Originally posted by spbed Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 8:44 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Is that from Chic to Milw on that day room? [:o)][:)] Take me for a instant. I live in the lower SE & say to get to Chic by train would be a day or more. Airplane 4 1/2 hours including 1 hour drive time to & from the airport. Yes airlines such as Delta & United & US Air are in deep doo-doo from past giveaways when times were good. But el cheapo airlines such as SW, Jet Blue, Spirit are doing quite well. As a example I am going shortly from FLL to Omaha Mapquest says that is 3,200 miles round trip & I am paying only $120.00 for the R/T ticket or less then $0.04 per mile. Mapquest further says by car it is 25 hours vs air about 7 with the L/O in Chicago. As I have said the few that will give up hours for a train are in my opinion quite few & far between. [:o)][:D][:p] Hopefully you are aware that the main reason the interstate system was even built was so we can easily move very heavy military equipment from point A to point B most quickly. If you check out the law that enabled the I system you will find that EVERY underpass has to be I think 15'8" below the overpass so that large equipment like tanks & APV & things like that can pass underneath safely. [:o)][:D][:p] No matter in my opinion outside of the NEC train travel in the USA is for the few not the many sorry to say. [:p][:D] Originally posted by jimitimi Why would someone who obviously hates trains post in a train forum? It boggles the mind.... Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Amtrak fares too low? Posted by oltmannd on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 7:41 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Sorry no those "baby" boomer's grew up using jets so they will not graviate to trains in my opinion. For them hopping on a plane & being at their destination in just a few small hours is like hopping in your car & getting the AM newspaper. That is why I say that outside of the NEC A/trak patronage will continue to fall not increase so it will constantly need more & more $$$$$ as the years go by. [:o)][:D] Originally posted by dldance Originally posted by spbed This arguement is fataly flawed. The generation that knew nothing but rail for intercity travel abandoned it in a heartbeat for air and auto in the late 40s and 50s. Why? In part, because flying and driving were the "new thing" and the culture valued (and still values) "new and improved" over "old and tradtional". After 100 years of riding trains, people were ready for a change. The train was definitely not "space age". Us boomers grew up with flying and driving as the norm - just as we view suburban living as the norm. Neither seems particularly "fun" in it's own right. The Sunday Drive is a thing of the past. The idea of taking a train anywhere was a bad joke for most of the 1970s (with the exception of the NEC, perhaps). In the mid 70s, if you told someone you were taking a train somewhere, they'd ask why, not out of curiousity, but to question your sanity! Johnny Carson even used "Amtrak Breath" as an epithet on his show. What's happened since then, is that Amtrak has gotten much better and taking the train actually seems interesting and "new" to those who grew up with cars and planes. You don't get quite the strange looks now that you did back in the 70s when you told people you were taking the train. Trains have actually become "the new thing". Just look at California. The people who are riding the corridors in California and the NEC are not WWII vets who grew up with trains, but those born in the 60s and 70s who never gave trains a second thought growing up. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 7:16 AM Sorry no those "baby" boomer's grew up using jets so they will not graviate to trains in my opinion. For them hopping on a plane & being at their destination in just a few small hours is like hopping in your car & getting the AM newspaper. That is why I say that outside of the NEC A/trak patronage will continue to fall not increase so it will constantly need more & more $$$$$ as the years go by. [:o)][:D] Originally posted by dldance Originally posted by spbed Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 7:09 AM Is that from Chic to Milw on that day room? [:o)][:)] Take me for a instant. I live in the lower SE & say to get to Chic by train would be a day or more. Airplane 4 1/2 hours including 1 hour drive time to & from the airport. Yes airlines such as Delta & United & US Air are in deep doo-doo from past giveaways when times were good. But el cheapo airlines such as SW, Jet Blue, Spirit are doing quite well. As a example I am going shortly from FLL to Omaha Mapquest says that is 3,200 miles round trip & I am paying only $120.00 for the R/T ticket or less then $0.04 per mile. Mapquest further says by car it is 25 hours vs air about 7 with the L/O in Chicago. As I have said the few that will give up hours for a train are in my opinion quite few & far between. [:o)][:D][:p] Hopefully you are aware that the main reason the interstate system was even built was so we can easily move very heavy military equipment from point A to point B most quickly. If you check out the law that enabled the I system you will find that EVERY underpass has to be I think 15'8" below the overpass so that large equipment like tanks & APV & things like that can pass underneath safely. [:o)][:D][:p] No matter in my opinion outside of the NEC train travel in the USA is for the few not the many sorry to say. [:p][:D] Originally posted by jimitimi Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 6:42 AM If you could ride a fast train to Chicago from Popular Bluff, MO in less than 3 hours, why would anyone fly? The coach seats are larger than first class seats on an airliner, oops, Southwest doesn't have first class, and there is a diner and lounge car to relax in......with a much better view of the countryside..... With a HSR train service able to run a Dallas to Chicago route in 6-7 hours, and be able to offer three times the frequency of our now daily service, you wouldn't have to wake up before dawn to catch the train or arrive home near midnight.... Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 5:16 AM first of all. not all trains in europe are high speed. the dutch run there stuff at about 90 mph. they use flyovers to avoid slowing trains leaving the stations at the same time going to different destinations. They also run like clockwork and can because the distances between stops is MUCH smaller than in the states. Yes gas is much higher but the trains are running on a timely schedule and arealmost always on time. It's very easy to figure out when you need to leave and what train goes where. This also leads to easy connections with other trains. But best of all you can ask any conductor for a ticket for any destination in Europe and get a price, what train or trains you need just like airline reservations!! The conductors carry a palm pilot like device that links with the transit database. Works real well. Reply Edit nobullchitbids Member sinceFebruary 2012 257 posts Posted by nobullchitbids on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 2:40 AM Here, Here, mate! Los Angeles once had a system similar to what you describe, the "Big Red Cars" of the Pacific Electric, and the last time I was there (some 30 years ago), some of the freeways still had the right-of-way in the middle clearly visible (the freeways actually followed the rail lines during the expansion after the World War). But, the Big Red Cars are long gone: Back around 1950, General Motors decided that, if the cars disappeared, more people would have to buy automobiles; so, GM subsidized a bus company to come in and drive PE out of business, then dropped its subsidization so that the bus company had to cut back its service as well. By then, most of the Big Reds had been torched. Some of the wiser supervisors objected at the time that the loss of PE and transformation to an all-auto society would bathe LA in air pollution, but GM officials glibly told the majority on the board that they had nothing to worry about! Needless to say, it was not long before LA was the smog capital of the world. GM, however, did have several stellar years. More recently, I believe several commuter operations in the Chicago and Cleveland areas were able to operate successfully because the rail lines did parallel the freeways, and management was able to advertise against all of those "suckers" sitting in the impassable lines of traffic during rush hour. So, yes, there are markets here for commuter and light rail, but the problem still remains: How to get to the ultimate destination? If there are not good bus connections at both ends, given the size of American cities, the railroads simply cannot offer the service the public needs. City governments looking to increase use of alternative modes of transportation do need to think in terms of such an integrated approach, and when they do, they have to think in terms of whether an all-bus line is better than a bus-rail combination. Reply Bulbous Member sinceJune 2004 9 posts Posted by Bulbous on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 1:47 AM The real wonder is that the cost to the government of the interstate system seems to be over looked, but the cost of a national rail system is too much to bear? I live in australia, and the problem here is the same, with people not caring about roads being built, but if you spend the same amount of money on passenger rail, then everyone complains that it is not well spent. They all fail to realise that the roads will probably not need expansion due to the thousands of people who will now travel by a competitive rail alternative...... the above is because in Perth, we are building rail lines down the centre of our freeways, with stations at all the major interchanges, and this is great advertising for the system when the trains fly past the people stuck in traffic jams...... :) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, April 25, 2005 10:12 PM North America is unique in its subsidies of airlines, air controllers, airports & screening personnel, minuscule landing fees; vs property taxes, a freight oriented mentality ( Pandora's Box in itself), the sacred cow of speed being essential, an administration that backs up air service no matter what while essentially ignoring rail service, freight schedules that DO delay passenger trains, only one Auto-train - - - and that is just scraping the surface. True costs and efficiencies need homework to be revealed. And how many are in favor of putting a lot of those Interstate-hogging semis on the railroad? No one likes to wait in line to be screened, sit in a seat made for midgets, go through boaring and deplaning like a herd of catle, to ride in a cigar-shaped dehumanizing vehicle. They do it because they are in a hurry. And they have to give a little on the speed end when the weather is uncooperative, when some bean-counter disallows connections between flights because of said weather delays and lets people go whistle until the next flight. Great way to live if you like association with sardines. Edna St. Vincent Millay is not the only one who enjoys trains, for many, many reasons. JD McFarland Reply Edit UPTRAIN Member sinceJune 2002 From: Independence, MO 1,570 posts Posted by UPTRAIN on Monday, April 25, 2005 9:35 PM Southwest Airlines is still cheaper between St. Louis and Chicago than Amtrak is from Poplar Bluff, MO to Chicago. Pump Reply nobullchitbids Member sinceFebruary 2012 257 posts Posted by nobullchitbids on Monday, April 25, 2005 8:42 PM The real issue re passenger rail service to some extent has nothing to do with fares or subsidies. Indeed, Connecticut recently did a study of its commuter and Amtrak services and concluded that, to the extent cost be the only issue, it would be cheaper to kill the subsidies (which would kill the trains) and buy all the riders cars or vans. Compared to highway use and highway options, the ridership is limited, and then there is the problem of setting up and paying for the final leg of the journey (which probably is nowhere near a train station). Amtrak is far more expensive than Metro, and to some extent the fares are silly, given one can take a subsidized bus for as little as a tenth of the cost of a train ticket (downside: trip does take longer). But, in the end, what many of the politicians will look at is whether we really want all of those additional cars and vans clogging the roads? If the environmentalists whine louder than the taxpayers, it is obvious what legislatures will do. Reply DSchmitt Member sinceSeptember 2003 From: California - moved to North Carolina 2018 4,422 posts Posted by DSchmitt on Monday, April 25, 2005 8:22 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by morseman No mention in this forum comparing Via Rail & Amtrak Several months ago I compared prices for a trip from Toronto to VCancouver on Via with a trip on the same dates from Philadelphia to Vancouver. Price was nearly double on Via even taking into account the exchange on the Cdn/US dollar. Booked Amtrak but had to cancel account our travelling companions became sick. Just got back from Amtrak trip Philly-Ft.Lauderdale. Train was packed both directions, Meals were much improved, Found price quite reasonable. Most passengers in sleepers were 30-50 Yrs old . My wife and I will continue to take one or two Amtrak tripa a year and quite often include it with a cruise. Interesting: the fare on Via compared to Amtrak. One of the excuses for Amtrak fares low is the low cost of gasoline in the USA. I believe the cost of gas in Canada is not much higher than in the US. I started this thread to get people thinking about Amtrak's fares, and whether they could be increased. Would increasing fares allow reduced subsidies and/or provide money needed to improve the system? Would, as some have suggested, there be such a large decrease in ridership that loses would be higher? Is it possible that while there would be an initial loss of riders, it would not be a permanent loss? I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it. I don't have a leg to stand on. Reply jimitimi Member sinceApril 2003 From: Andover, MN 33 posts Posted by jimitimi on Monday, April 25, 2005 8:03 PM I am only 40 and travel A/trak whenever possible when I need to go to Milwaukee or Chicago. The price is reasonable and I even get a "day" room as the meals are included and they are more comfortable. Until the Bush and Mineta Circus Act leaves town and gets realistic and gets off their "the states will pay" issue rail service will continue to drag along without any mandate. Let's look at the rail system as a SYSTEM and invest in it like the 1950's Defense Interstate Highway SYSTEM and we'd have high speed competetive trains running all over the country! The midwest HSR plan looks like a great way to go. I see the projections call for profitable incremental cost operation as long as the infrastructure is funded. Then charge a fare that covers the marginal costs and we'd be in business. As far as I last checked, the airline industry isn't exactly printing money, rather hemorraging red ink! Reply DSchmitt Member sinceSeptember 2003 From: California - moved to North Carolina 2018 4,422 posts Posted by DSchmitt on Monday, April 25, 2005 7:59 PM to thefox I chose San Francisco as the starting point because it is the major well known city closest to my home, therefore they are train trips I might take. The fares were for: California Zephyr to Salt Lake City Coast Starlight to Seattle Coast Starlight to Los Angeles None are Amtrak California trains. The Amtrak California trains are: Pacific Surfliner San Luis Opispo-San Diego, San Jauquins, Oakland-Stockton-Bakersfield, Sacramento-Stockton-Bakersfield Capitol Corridor, Auburn-Sacramento-Oakland-San Jose plus connecting buses in each case I was hoping that someone might be able to come up with subsidy information for European trains to compare with Amtrak. Another question is: How do the costs compare with peoples income in the Europe and in the US? I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it. I don't have a leg to stand on. Reply morseman Member sinceJuly 2004 From: Ontario - Canada 463 posts Posted by morseman on Monday, April 25, 2005 7:42 PM No mention in this forum comparing Via Rail & Amtrak Several months ago I compared prices for a trip from Toronto to VCancouver on Via with a trip on the same dates from Philadelphia to Vancouver. Price was nearly double on Via even taking into account the exchange on the Cdn/US dollar. Booked Amtrak but had to cancel account our travelling companions became sick. Just got back from Amtrak trip Philly-Ft.Lauderdale. Train was packed both directions, Meals were much improved, Found price quite reasonable. Most passengers in sleepers were 30-50 Yrs old . My wife and I will continue to take one or two Amtrak tripa a year and quite often include it with a cruise. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, April 25, 2005 7:18 PM geoffrey: don't judge Amtrak by the Sunset Limited... longest route=longest time to become late. And often times they [Amtrak] can't help it, it's the freight railroad's fault. To anyone else: Some people (e.g. U.S. pres, and his sec of transportation, Mineta) seem to think that the NE Corridor is profitable. On a day to day basis (this was before Acela got taken off the rails) yeah it is. However, over a period of time, say a year, maintenance costs still turn it into a negative profit. No railroad (or commuter rail, etc.) in the world (except maybe a luxury railroad that's not really about transportation) is actually profitable over a any real period of time. In fact the longer routes on Amtrak have shown that they make closer to breaking even (still a long shot) than the NE corridor. Why do you think the railroads wanted to unload passenger service in the first place? Privatization is definitely not the way to go. Why choose Amtrak at all? One big reason for me, I have been cross-continent MANY times by train and plane (and I'm not that old either) and I saw a heck of lot more of the continent and learned more by train than by plane. Finally, I don't remember who started the thread, but..... You can't use Amtrak California fares to compare Amtrak to anything except Amtrak California itself. They are different genres entirely in terms of fares and service, etc. In my opinion the premise of this thread was fairly ridiculous to start with. The fares are already high enough to turn many potential riders away. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, April 25, 2005 6:48 PM Gas in Europe at double the price of the USA ?- I wish-- The price of Unleaded Gas in Britain is nearly $10.00 PER GALLON. Road tax on my car is $350.00 per year. I was in Las Vegas in Febuary and paid around $1.92 a gallon. Tax on Gas is Around 70% here. Some rail journeys ie Manchester to London return cost around $300 return with Virgin for a total return mileage of around 390 miles. Having said all of that we had tickets from New Orleans for the return leg of 'The Sunset Ltd' to Orlando in February last year for a train that was 27 Hours late and turned into a bus. We won't be travelling with Amtrak again. Reply Edit darth9x9 Member sinceDecember 2002 From: US 665 posts Posted by darth9x9 on Monday, April 25, 2005 6:06 PM Comparing the fares of Amtrak to those in Europe is like comparing apples to oranges. More American's own cars per capita than Europeans. Also America's infrastructure favors the car where as Europe's favors rail. Americans have always loved their cars and the nation has dramatically catered to the automobile since WWII. On the other hand after WWII, Europe had little to no infrastructure with all of the destruction from the war. Europe decided to build a rail network - it was easy (easier) back then. I have spent several years in Europe and I love to travel by rail in Europe. They have trains that go most everywhere you need to and if not, a short cab ride will get you to your destination. The other thing is that the trains run frequently in Europe. And don't be one minute late for catching your train or you WILL be chasing it down the platform! Bill Carl (modeling Chessie and predecessors from 1973-1983) Member of Four County Society of Model Engineers NCE DCC Master Visit the FCSME at www.FCSME.org Modular railroading at its best! If it has an X in it, it sucks! And yes, I just had my modeler's license renewed last week! Reply dldance Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Near Promentory UT 1,590 posts Posted by dldance on Monday, April 25, 2005 4:09 PM Originally posted by spbed My theroy is as the elderly go to another place A/trak patronage will decrease as well as todays "baby" boomers or the next elderly come from the jet age not like todays elderly who came before the jet age & for the mosy part were afraid to fly. [:o)][8D] Interesting theory - but us "baby boomers" are just approaching our "Amtrak" years. The demographic of early/near retired people is the fastest growing demographic in North American and will be for the next 10 years. These are the ones with the money and the time to ride Amtrak. dd Reply Simon Reed Member sinceMarch 2005 From: Sulzerland, UK 337 posts Posted by Simon Reed on Monday, April 25, 2005 2:08 PM As a British lover of American passenger rail, I'd say unequivocally yes, Amtrak fares are lower than European fares over a comparable distance, but commuter rail fares are also lower by the same comparison. I'm not sure what that indicates other than possibly a difference in perceptions of the price the passenger is prepared to pay. I would, however, absolutely disagree with any suggestion that people in the US travel by rail because they either can't afford to fly or are of a generation which regards flying with concern or alarm. I've done the best part of 20,000 miles on Amtrak and would say that the vast majority of passengers on long distance services are travelling by rail because they WANT to. The American people I've met on, say, the Sunset or Empire Builder have been people with sufficient means to fly, but enough spare time to travel by rail and watch their country going by the window. Maybe many of the people who fall into that category are retired, thereby creating the impression that Amtrak is a resort of the elderly, but retirement and the free time and financial independence to take the train will hopefully come to us all. It's an infinately renewable market. I wonder to what degree Amtrak's farebox woes would be lessened by jacking up long distance fares to a "European" level whilst aggressively marketing the train as a leisure commodity to those rich in both cash and time - i.e. the domestic senior market and the independently minded European/Australasian traveller. A national passenger rail infrastructure - even one as moribund and fragmented as yours - is a national asset. I sincerely hope to be riding Amtrak for many years yet, and for your sake as well as mine. Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Monday, April 25, 2005 1:18 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Thanks so todays tix price is beyond the cost of a tix in 76 using todays money[:o)][:D] Originally posted by oltmannd Three times over! -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, April 25, 2005 12:35 PM My theroy is as the elderly go to another place A/trak patronage will decrease as well as todays "baby" boomers or the next elderly come from the jet age not like todays elderly who came before the jet age & for the mosy part were afraid to fly. [:o)][8D] Originally posted by Muddy Creek Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, April 25, 2005 12:30 PM Thanks so todays tix price is beyond the cost of a tix in 76 using todays money[:o)][:D] Originally posted by oltmannd Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply dldance Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Near Promentory UT 1,590 posts Posted by dldance on Monday, April 25, 2005 12:00 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by Muddy Creek QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Sure you may have seen a few "young" persons but in general those "young" people who use the train are a on vast minority to more elderly riders. Though my experience tells me otherwise, assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, may I respectfully ask, "So what?" Wayne I agree. So what? My own anecdotal experience with LD trains has been young people in the coaches, old people in the sleepers. A year ago, on a trip in a coach on the Crescent, I was just about the oldest guy in the coach at 48! My experience on the Cardinal and the Texas Eagle last month was about the same - young in coach and older in sleepers -- and both trains were full. The Cardinal had been overbooked in coach from Indianapolis to Chicago. dd Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Monday, April 25, 2005 11:12 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by Muddy Creek QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Sure you may have seen a few "young" persons but in general those "young" people who use the train are a on vast minority to more elderly riders. Though my experience tells me otherwise, assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, may I respectfully ask, "So what?" Wayne I agree. So what? My own anecdotal experience with LD trains has been young people in the coaches, old people in the sleepers. A year ago, on a trip in a coach on the Crescent, I was just about the oldest guy in the coach at 48! -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Monday, April 25, 2005 11:10 AM No math whiz needed. Just use gov't CPI calculator http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm $5.25 in 1976 = $17.84 in 2005 I think Amtrak has (or at least had, in recent history) a cost control issue. -Don -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, April 25, 2005 10:33 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Sure you may have seen a few "young" persons but in general those "young" people who use the train are a on vast minority to more elderly riders. Though my experience tells me otherwise, assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, may I respectfully ask, "So what?" Wayne Reply Edit 123 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub
Originally posted by Deni Originally posted by spbed Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 8:44 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Is that from Chic to Milw on that day room? [:o)][:)] Take me for a instant. I live in the lower SE & say to get to Chic by train would be a day or more. Airplane 4 1/2 hours including 1 hour drive time to & from the airport. Yes airlines such as Delta & United & US Air are in deep doo-doo from past giveaways when times were good. But el cheapo airlines such as SW, Jet Blue, Spirit are doing quite well. As a example I am going shortly from FLL to Omaha Mapquest says that is 3,200 miles round trip & I am paying only $120.00 for the R/T ticket or less then $0.04 per mile. Mapquest further says by car it is 25 hours vs air about 7 with the L/O in Chicago. As I have said the few that will give up hours for a train are in my opinion quite few & far between. [:o)][:D][:p] Hopefully you are aware that the main reason the interstate system was even built was so we can easily move very heavy military equipment from point A to point B most quickly. If you check out the law that enabled the I system you will find that EVERY underpass has to be I think 15'8" below the overpass so that large equipment like tanks & APV & things like that can pass underneath safely. [:o)][:D][:p] No matter in my opinion outside of the NEC train travel in the USA is for the few not the many sorry to say. [:p][:D] Originally posted by jimitimi Why would someone who obviously hates trains post in a train forum? It boggles the mind.... Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Amtrak fares too low? Posted by oltmannd on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 7:41 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Sorry no those "baby" boomer's grew up using jets so they will not graviate to trains in my opinion. For them hopping on a plane & being at their destination in just a few small hours is like hopping in your car & getting the AM newspaper. That is why I say that outside of the NEC A/trak patronage will continue to fall not increase so it will constantly need more & more $$$$$ as the years go by. [:o)][:D] Originally posted by dldance Originally posted by spbed This arguement is fataly flawed. The generation that knew nothing but rail for intercity travel abandoned it in a heartbeat for air and auto in the late 40s and 50s. Why? In part, because flying and driving were the "new thing" and the culture valued (and still values) "new and improved" over "old and tradtional". After 100 years of riding trains, people were ready for a change. The train was definitely not "space age". Us boomers grew up with flying and driving as the norm - just as we view suburban living as the norm. Neither seems particularly "fun" in it's own right. The Sunday Drive is a thing of the past. The idea of taking a train anywhere was a bad joke for most of the 1970s (with the exception of the NEC, perhaps). In the mid 70s, if you told someone you were taking a train somewhere, they'd ask why, not out of curiousity, but to question your sanity! Johnny Carson even used "Amtrak Breath" as an epithet on his show. What's happened since then, is that Amtrak has gotten much better and taking the train actually seems interesting and "new" to those who grew up with cars and planes. You don't get quite the strange looks now that you did back in the 70s when you told people you were taking the train. Trains have actually become "the new thing". Just look at California. The people who are riding the corridors in California and the NEC are not WWII vets who grew up with trains, but those born in the 60s and 70s who never gave trains a second thought growing up. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 7:16 AM Sorry no those "baby" boomer's grew up using jets so they will not graviate to trains in my opinion. For them hopping on a plane & being at their destination in just a few small hours is like hopping in your car & getting the AM newspaper. That is why I say that outside of the NEC A/trak patronage will continue to fall not increase so it will constantly need more & more $$$$$ as the years go by. [:o)][:D] Originally posted by dldance Originally posted by spbed Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 7:09 AM Is that from Chic to Milw on that day room? [:o)][:)] Take me for a instant. I live in the lower SE & say to get to Chic by train would be a day or more. Airplane 4 1/2 hours including 1 hour drive time to & from the airport. Yes airlines such as Delta & United & US Air are in deep doo-doo from past giveaways when times were good. But el cheapo airlines such as SW, Jet Blue, Spirit are doing quite well. As a example I am going shortly from FLL to Omaha Mapquest says that is 3,200 miles round trip & I am paying only $120.00 for the R/T ticket or less then $0.04 per mile. Mapquest further says by car it is 25 hours vs air about 7 with the L/O in Chicago. As I have said the few that will give up hours for a train are in my opinion quite few & far between. [:o)][:D][:p] Hopefully you are aware that the main reason the interstate system was even built was so we can easily move very heavy military equipment from point A to point B most quickly. If you check out the law that enabled the I system you will find that EVERY underpass has to be I think 15'8" below the overpass so that large equipment like tanks & APV & things like that can pass underneath safely. [:o)][:D][:p] No matter in my opinion outside of the NEC train travel in the USA is for the few not the many sorry to say. [:p][:D] Originally posted by jimitimi Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 6:42 AM If you could ride a fast train to Chicago from Popular Bluff, MO in less than 3 hours, why would anyone fly? The coach seats are larger than first class seats on an airliner, oops, Southwest doesn't have first class, and there is a diner and lounge car to relax in......with a much better view of the countryside..... With a HSR train service able to run a Dallas to Chicago route in 6-7 hours, and be able to offer three times the frequency of our now daily service, you wouldn't have to wake up before dawn to catch the train or arrive home near midnight.... Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 5:16 AM first of all. not all trains in europe are high speed. the dutch run there stuff at about 90 mph. they use flyovers to avoid slowing trains leaving the stations at the same time going to different destinations. They also run like clockwork and can because the distances between stops is MUCH smaller than in the states. Yes gas is much higher but the trains are running on a timely schedule and arealmost always on time. It's very easy to figure out when you need to leave and what train goes where. This also leads to easy connections with other trains. But best of all you can ask any conductor for a ticket for any destination in Europe and get a price, what train or trains you need just like airline reservations!! The conductors carry a palm pilot like device that links with the transit database. Works real well. Reply Edit nobullchitbids Member sinceFebruary 2012 257 posts Posted by nobullchitbids on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 2:40 AM Here, Here, mate! Los Angeles once had a system similar to what you describe, the "Big Red Cars" of the Pacific Electric, and the last time I was there (some 30 years ago), some of the freeways still had the right-of-way in the middle clearly visible (the freeways actually followed the rail lines during the expansion after the World War). But, the Big Red Cars are long gone: Back around 1950, General Motors decided that, if the cars disappeared, more people would have to buy automobiles; so, GM subsidized a bus company to come in and drive PE out of business, then dropped its subsidization so that the bus company had to cut back its service as well. By then, most of the Big Reds had been torched. Some of the wiser supervisors objected at the time that the loss of PE and transformation to an all-auto society would bathe LA in air pollution, but GM officials glibly told the majority on the board that they had nothing to worry about! Needless to say, it was not long before LA was the smog capital of the world. GM, however, did have several stellar years. More recently, I believe several commuter operations in the Chicago and Cleveland areas were able to operate successfully because the rail lines did parallel the freeways, and management was able to advertise against all of those "suckers" sitting in the impassable lines of traffic during rush hour. So, yes, there are markets here for commuter and light rail, but the problem still remains: How to get to the ultimate destination? If there are not good bus connections at both ends, given the size of American cities, the railroads simply cannot offer the service the public needs. City governments looking to increase use of alternative modes of transportation do need to think in terms of such an integrated approach, and when they do, they have to think in terms of whether an all-bus line is better than a bus-rail combination. Reply Bulbous Member sinceJune 2004 9 posts Posted by Bulbous on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 1:47 AM The real wonder is that the cost to the government of the interstate system seems to be over looked, but the cost of a national rail system is too much to bear? I live in australia, and the problem here is the same, with people not caring about roads being built, but if you spend the same amount of money on passenger rail, then everyone complains that it is not well spent. They all fail to realise that the roads will probably not need expansion due to the thousands of people who will now travel by a competitive rail alternative...... the above is because in Perth, we are building rail lines down the centre of our freeways, with stations at all the major interchanges, and this is great advertising for the system when the trains fly past the people stuck in traffic jams...... :) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, April 25, 2005 10:12 PM North America is unique in its subsidies of airlines, air controllers, airports & screening personnel, minuscule landing fees; vs property taxes, a freight oriented mentality ( Pandora's Box in itself), the sacred cow of speed being essential, an administration that backs up air service no matter what while essentially ignoring rail service, freight schedules that DO delay passenger trains, only one Auto-train - - - and that is just scraping the surface. True costs and efficiencies need homework to be revealed. And how many are in favor of putting a lot of those Interstate-hogging semis on the railroad? No one likes to wait in line to be screened, sit in a seat made for midgets, go through boaring and deplaning like a herd of catle, to ride in a cigar-shaped dehumanizing vehicle. They do it because they are in a hurry. And they have to give a little on the speed end when the weather is uncooperative, when some bean-counter disallows connections between flights because of said weather delays and lets people go whistle until the next flight. Great way to live if you like association with sardines. Edna St. Vincent Millay is not the only one who enjoys trains, for many, many reasons. JD McFarland Reply Edit UPTRAIN Member sinceJune 2002 From: Independence, MO 1,570 posts Posted by UPTRAIN on Monday, April 25, 2005 9:35 PM Southwest Airlines is still cheaper between St. Louis and Chicago than Amtrak is from Poplar Bluff, MO to Chicago. Pump Reply nobullchitbids Member sinceFebruary 2012 257 posts Posted by nobullchitbids on Monday, April 25, 2005 8:42 PM The real issue re passenger rail service to some extent has nothing to do with fares or subsidies. Indeed, Connecticut recently did a study of its commuter and Amtrak services and concluded that, to the extent cost be the only issue, it would be cheaper to kill the subsidies (which would kill the trains) and buy all the riders cars or vans. Compared to highway use and highway options, the ridership is limited, and then there is the problem of setting up and paying for the final leg of the journey (which probably is nowhere near a train station). Amtrak is far more expensive than Metro, and to some extent the fares are silly, given one can take a subsidized bus for as little as a tenth of the cost of a train ticket (downside: trip does take longer). But, in the end, what many of the politicians will look at is whether we really want all of those additional cars and vans clogging the roads? If the environmentalists whine louder than the taxpayers, it is obvious what legislatures will do. Reply DSchmitt Member sinceSeptember 2003 From: California - moved to North Carolina 2018 4,422 posts Posted by DSchmitt on Monday, April 25, 2005 8:22 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by morseman No mention in this forum comparing Via Rail & Amtrak Several months ago I compared prices for a trip from Toronto to VCancouver on Via with a trip on the same dates from Philadelphia to Vancouver. Price was nearly double on Via even taking into account the exchange on the Cdn/US dollar. Booked Amtrak but had to cancel account our travelling companions became sick. Just got back from Amtrak trip Philly-Ft.Lauderdale. Train was packed both directions, Meals were much improved, Found price quite reasonable. Most passengers in sleepers were 30-50 Yrs old . My wife and I will continue to take one or two Amtrak tripa a year and quite often include it with a cruise. Interesting: the fare on Via compared to Amtrak. One of the excuses for Amtrak fares low is the low cost of gasoline in the USA. I believe the cost of gas in Canada is not much higher than in the US. I started this thread to get people thinking about Amtrak's fares, and whether they could be increased. Would increasing fares allow reduced subsidies and/or provide money needed to improve the system? Would, as some have suggested, there be such a large decrease in ridership that loses would be higher? Is it possible that while there would be an initial loss of riders, it would not be a permanent loss? I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it. I don't have a leg to stand on. Reply jimitimi Member sinceApril 2003 From: Andover, MN 33 posts Posted by jimitimi on Monday, April 25, 2005 8:03 PM I am only 40 and travel A/trak whenever possible when I need to go to Milwaukee or Chicago. The price is reasonable and I even get a "day" room as the meals are included and they are more comfortable. Until the Bush and Mineta Circus Act leaves town and gets realistic and gets off their "the states will pay" issue rail service will continue to drag along without any mandate. Let's look at the rail system as a SYSTEM and invest in it like the 1950's Defense Interstate Highway SYSTEM and we'd have high speed competetive trains running all over the country! The midwest HSR plan looks like a great way to go. I see the projections call for profitable incremental cost operation as long as the infrastructure is funded. Then charge a fare that covers the marginal costs and we'd be in business. As far as I last checked, the airline industry isn't exactly printing money, rather hemorraging red ink! Reply DSchmitt Member sinceSeptember 2003 From: California - moved to North Carolina 2018 4,422 posts Posted by DSchmitt on Monday, April 25, 2005 7:59 PM to thefox I chose San Francisco as the starting point because it is the major well known city closest to my home, therefore they are train trips I might take. The fares were for: California Zephyr to Salt Lake City Coast Starlight to Seattle Coast Starlight to Los Angeles None are Amtrak California trains. The Amtrak California trains are: Pacific Surfliner San Luis Opispo-San Diego, San Jauquins, Oakland-Stockton-Bakersfield, Sacramento-Stockton-Bakersfield Capitol Corridor, Auburn-Sacramento-Oakland-San Jose plus connecting buses in each case I was hoping that someone might be able to come up with subsidy information for European trains to compare with Amtrak. Another question is: How do the costs compare with peoples income in the Europe and in the US? I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it. I don't have a leg to stand on. Reply morseman Member sinceJuly 2004 From: Ontario - Canada 463 posts Posted by morseman on Monday, April 25, 2005 7:42 PM No mention in this forum comparing Via Rail & Amtrak Several months ago I compared prices for a trip from Toronto to VCancouver on Via with a trip on the same dates from Philadelphia to Vancouver. Price was nearly double on Via even taking into account the exchange on the Cdn/US dollar. Booked Amtrak but had to cancel account our travelling companions became sick. Just got back from Amtrak trip Philly-Ft.Lauderdale. Train was packed both directions, Meals were much improved, Found price quite reasonable. Most passengers in sleepers were 30-50 Yrs old . My wife and I will continue to take one or two Amtrak tripa a year and quite often include it with a cruise. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, April 25, 2005 7:18 PM geoffrey: don't judge Amtrak by the Sunset Limited... longest route=longest time to become late. And often times they [Amtrak] can't help it, it's the freight railroad's fault. To anyone else: Some people (e.g. U.S. pres, and his sec of transportation, Mineta) seem to think that the NE Corridor is profitable. On a day to day basis (this was before Acela got taken off the rails) yeah it is. However, over a period of time, say a year, maintenance costs still turn it into a negative profit. No railroad (or commuter rail, etc.) in the world (except maybe a luxury railroad that's not really about transportation) is actually profitable over a any real period of time. In fact the longer routes on Amtrak have shown that they make closer to breaking even (still a long shot) than the NE corridor. Why do you think the railroads wanted to unload passenger service in the first place? Privatization is definitely not the way to go. Why choose Amtrak at all? One big reason for me, I have been cross-continent MANY times by train and plane (and I'm not that old either) and I saw a heck of lot more of the continent and learned more by train than by plane. Finally, I don't remember who started the thread, but..... You can't use Amtrak California fares to compare Amtrak to anything except Amtrak California itself. They are different genres entirely in terms of fares and service, etc. In my opinion the premise of this thread was fairly ridiculous to start with. The fares are already high enough to turn many potential riders away. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, April 25, 2005 6:48 PM Gas in Europe at double the price of the USA ?- I wish-- The price of Unleaded Gas in Britain is nearly $10.00 PER GALLON. Road tax on my car is $350.00 per year. I was in Las Vegas in Febuary and paid around $1.92 a gallon. Tax on Gas is Around 70% here. Some rail journeys ie Manchester to London return cost around $300 return with Virgin for a total return mileage of around 390 miles. Having said all of that we had tickets from New Orleans for the return leg of 'The Sunset Ltd' to Orlando in February last year for a train that was 27 Hours late and turned into a bus. We won't be travelling with Amtrak again. Reply Edit darth9x9 Member sinceDecember 2002 From: US 665 posts Posted by darth9x9 on Monday, April 25, 2005 6:06 PM Comparing the fares of Amtrak to those in Europe is like comparing apples to oranges. More American's own cars per capita than Europeans. Also America's infrastructure favors the car where as Europe's favors rail. Americans have always loved their cars and the nation has dramatically catered to the automobile since WWII. On the other hand after WWII, Europe had little to no infrastructure with all of the destruction from the war. Europe decided to build a rail network - it was easy (easier) back then. I have spent several years in Europe and I love to travel by rail in Europe. They have trains that go most everywhere you need to and if not, a short cab ride will get you to your destination. The other thing is that the trains run frequently in Europe. And don't be one minute late for catching your train or you WILL be chasing it down the platform! Bill Carl (modeling Chessie and predecessors from 1973-1983) Member of Four County Society of Model Engineers NCE DCC Master Visit the FCSME at www.FCSME.org Modular railroading at its best! If it has an X in it, it sucks! And yes, I just had my modeler's license renewed last week! Reply dldance Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Near Promentory UT 1,590 posts Posted by dldance on Monday, April 25, 2005 4:09 PM Originally posted by spbed My theroy is as the elderly go to another place A/trak patronage will decrease as well as todays "baby" boomers or the next elderly come from the jet age not like todays elderly who came before the jet age & for the mosy part were afraid to fly. [:o)][8D] Interesting theory - but us "baby boomers" are just approaching our "Amtrak" years. The demographic of early/near retired people is the fastest growing demographic in North American and will be for the next 10 years. These are the ones with the money and the time to ride Amtrak. dd Reply Simon Reed Member sinceMarch 2005 From: Sulzerland, UK 337 posts Posted by Simon Reed on Monday, April 25, 2005 2:08 PM As a British lover of American passenger rail, I'd say unequivocally yes, Amtrak fares are lower than European fares over a comparable distance, but commuter rail fares are also lower by the same comparison. I'm not sure what that indicates other than possibly a difference in perceptions of the price the passenger is prepared to pay. I would, however, absolutely disagree with any suggestion that people in the US travel by rail because they either can't afford to fly or are of a generation which regards flying with concern or alarm. I've done the best part of 20,000 miles on Amtrak and would say that the vast majority of passengers on long distance services are travelling by rail because they WANT to. The American people I've met on, say, the Sunset or Empire Builder have been people with sufficient means to fly, but enough spare time to travel by rail and watch their country going by the window. Maybe many of the people who fall into that category are retired, thereby creating the impression that Amtrak is a resort of the elderly, but retirement and the free time and financial independence to take the train will hopefully come to us all. It's an infinately renewable market. I wonder to what degree Amtrak's farebox woes would be lessened by jacking up long distance fares to a "European" level whilst aggressively marketing the train as a leisure commodity to those rich in both cash and time - i.e. the domestic senior market and the independently minded European/Australasian traveller. A national passenger rail infrastructure - even one as moribund and fragmented as yours - is a national asset. I sincerely hope to be riding Amtrak for many years yet, and for your sake as well as mine. Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Monday, April 25, 2005 1:18 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Thanks so todays tix price is beyond the cost of a tix in 76 using todays money[:o)][:D] Originally posted by oltmannd Three times over! -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, April 25, 2005 12:35 PM My theroy is as the elderly go to another place A/trak patronage will decrease as well as todays "baby" boomers or the next elderly come from the jet age not like todays elderly who came before the jet age & for the mosy part were afraid to fly. [:o)][8D] Originally posted by Muddy Creek Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, April 25, 2005 12:30 PM Thanks so todays tix price is beyond the cost of a tix in 76 using todays money[:o)][:D] Originally posted by oltmannd Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply dldance Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Near Promentory UT 1,590 posts Posted by dldance on Monday, April 25, 2005 12:00 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by Muddy Creek QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Sure you may have seen a few "young" persons but in general those "young" people who use the train are a on vast minority to more elderly riders. Though my experience tells me otherwise, assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, may I respectfully ask, "So what?" Wayne I agree. So what? My own anecdotal experience with LD trains has been young people in the coaches, old people in the sleepers. A year ago, on a trip in a coach on the Crescent, I was just about the oldest guy in the coach at 48! My experience on the Cardinal and the Texas Eagle last month was about the same - young in coach and older in sleepers -- and both trains were full. The Cardinal had been overbooked in coach from Indianapolis to Chicago. dd Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Monday, April 25, 2005 11:12 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by Muddy Creek QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Sure you may have seen a few "young" persons but in general those "young" people who use the train are a on vast minority to more elderly riders. Though my experience tells me otherwise, assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, may I respectfully ask, "So what?" Wayne I agree. So what? My own anecdotal experience with LD trains has been young people in the coaches, old people in the sleepers. A year ago, on a trip in a coach on the Crescent, I was just about the oldest guy in the coach at 48! -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Monday, April 25, 2005 11:10 AM No math whiz needed. Just use gov't CPI calculator http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm $5.25 in 1976 = $17.84 in 2005 I think Amtrak has (or at least had, in recent history) a cost control issue. -Don -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, April 25, 2005 10:33 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Sure you may have seen a few "young" persons but in general those "young" people who use the train are a on vast minority to more elderly riders. Though my experience tells me otherwise, assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, may I respectfully ask, "So what?" Wayne Reply Edit 123 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Originally posted by spbed Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 8:44 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Is that from Chic to Milw on that day room? [:o)][:)] Take me for a instant. I live in the lower SE & say to get to Chic by train would be a day or more. Airplane 4 1/2 hours including 1 hour drive time to & from the airport. Yes airlines such as Delta & United & US Air are in deep doo-doo from past giveaways when times were good. But el cheapo airlines such as SW, Jet Blue, Spirit are doing quite well. As a example I am going shortly from FLL to Omaha Mapquest says that is 3,200 miles round trip & I am paying only $120.00 for the R/T ticket or less then $0.04 per mile. Mapquest further says by car it is 25 hours vs air about 7 with the L/O in Chicago. As I have said the few that will give up hours for a train are in my opinion quite few & far between. [:o)][:D][:p] Hopefully you are aware that the main reason the interstate system was even built was so we can easily move very heavy military equipment from point A to point B most quickly. If you check out the law that enabled the I system you will find that EVERY underpass has to be I think 15'8" below the overpass so that large equipment like tanks & APV & things like that can pass underneath safely. [:o)][:D][:p] No matter in my opinion outside of the NEC train travel in the USA is for the few not the many sorry to say. [:p][:D] Originally posted by jimitimi Why would someone who obviously hates trains post in a train forum? It boggles the mind.... Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Amtrak fares too low? Posted by oltmannd on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 7:41 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Sorry no those "baby" boomer's grew up using jets so they will not graviate to trains in my opinion. For them hopping on a plane & being at their destination in just a few small hours is like hopping in your car & getting the AM newspaper. That is why I say that outside of the NEC A/trak patronage will continue to fall not increase so it will constantly need more & more $$$$$ as the years go by. [:o)][:D] Originally posted by dldance Originally posted by spbed This arguement is fataly flawed. The generation that knew nothing but rail for intercity travel abandoned it in a heartbeat for air and auto in the late 40s and 50s. Why? In part, because flying and driving were the "new thing" and the culture valued (and still values) "new and improved" over "old and tradtional". After 100 years of riding trains, people were ready for a change. The train was definitely not "space age". Us boomers grew up with flying and driving as the norm - just as we view suburban living as the norm. Neither seems particularly "fun" in it's own right. The Sunday Drive is a thing of the past. The idea of taking a train anywhere was a bad joke for most of the 1970s (with the exception of the NEC, perhaps). In the mid 70s, if you told someone you were taking a train somewhere, they'd ask why, not out of curiousity, but to question your sanity! Johnny Carson even used "Amtrak Breath" as an epithet on his show. What's happened since then, is that Amtrak has gotten much better and taking the train actually seems interesting and "new" to those who grew up with cars and planes. You don't get quite the strange looks now that you did back in the 70s when you told people you were taking the train. Trains have actually become "the new thing". Just look at California. The people who are riding the corridors in California and the NEC are not WWII vets who grew up with trains, but those born in the 60s and 70s who never gave trains a second thought growing up. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 7:16 AM Sorry no those "baby" boomer's grew up using jets so they will not graviate to trains in my opinion. For them hopping on a plane & being at their destination in just a few small hours is like hopping in your car & getting the AM newspaper. That is why I say that outside of the NEC A/trak patronage will continue to fall not increase so it will constantly need more & more $$$$$ as the years go by. [:o)][:D] Originally posted by dldance Originally posted by spbed Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 7:09 AM Is that from Chic to Milw on that day room? [:o)][:)] Take me for a instant. I live in the lower SE & say to get to Chic by train would be a day or more. Airplane 4 1/2 hours including 1 hour drive time to & from the airport. Yes airlines such as Delta & United & US Air are in deep doo-doo from past giveaways when times were good. But el cheapo airlines such as SW, Jet Blue, Spirit are doing quite well. As a example I am going shortly from FLL to Omaha Mapquest says that is 3,200 miles round trip & I am paying only $120.00 for the R/T ticket or less then $0.04 per mile. Mapquest further says by car it is 25 hours vs air about 7 with the L/O in Chicago. As I have said the few that will give up hours for a train are in my opinion quite few & far between. [:o)][:D][:p] Hopefully you are aware that the main reason the interstate system was even built was so we can easily move very heavy military equipment from point A to point B most quickly. If you check out the law that enabled the I system you will find that EVERY underpass has to be I think 15'8" below the overpass so that large equipment like tanks & APV & things like that can pass underneath safely. [:o)][:D][:p] No matter in my opinion outside of the NEC train travel in the USA is for the few not the many sorry to say. [:p][:D] Originally posted by jimitimi Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 6:42 AM If you could ride a fast train to Chicago from Popular Bluff, MO in less than 3 hours, why would anyone fly? The coach seats are larger than first class seats on an airliner, oops, Southwest doesn't have first class, and there is a diner and lounge car to relax in......with a much better view of the countryside..... With a HSR train service able to run a Dallas to Chicago route in 6-7 hours, and be able to offer three times the frequency of our now daily service, you wouldn't have to wake up before dawn to catch the train or arrive home near midnight.... Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 5:16 AM first of all. not all trains in europe are high speed. the dutch run there stuff at about 90 mph. they use flyovers to avoid slowing trains leaving the stations at the same time going to different destinations. They also run like clockwork and can because the distances between stops is MUCH smaller than in the states. Yes gas is much higher but the trains are running on a timely schedule and arealmost always on time. It's very easy to figure out when you need to leave and what train goes where. This also leads to easy connections with other trains. But best of all you can ask any conductor for a ticket for any destination in Europe and get a price, what train or trains you need just like airline reservations!! The conductors carry a palm pilot like device that links with the transit database. Works real well. Reply Edit nobullchitbids Member sinceFebruary 2012 257 posts Posted by nobullchitbids on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 2:40 AM Here, Here, mate! Los Angeles once had a system similar to what you describe, the "Big Red Cars" of the Pacific Electric, and the last time I was there (some 30 years ago), some of the freeways still had the right-of-way in the middle clearly visible (the freeways actually followed the rail lines during the expansion after the World War). But, the Big Red Cars are long gone: Back around 1950, General Motors decided that, if the cars disappeared, more people would have to buy automobiles; so, GM subsidized a bus company to come in and drive PE out of business, then dropped its subsidization so that the bus company had to cut back its service as well. By then, most of the Big Reds had been torched. Some of the wiser supervisors objected at the time that the loss of PE and transformation to an all-auto society would bathe LA in air pollution, but GM officials glibly told the majority on the board that they had nothing to worry about! Needless to say, it was not long before LA was the smog capital of the world. GM, however, did have several stellar years. More recently, I believe several commuter operations in the Chicago and Cleveland areas were able to operate successfully because the rail lines did parallel the freeways, and management was able to advertise against all of those "suckers" sitting in the impassable lines of traffic during rush hour. So, yes, there are markets here for commuter and light rail, but the problem still remains: How to get to the ultimate destination? If there are not good bus connections at both ends, given the size of American cities, the railroads simply cannot offer the service the public needs. City governments looking to increase use of alternative modes of transportation do need to think in terms of such an integrated approach, and when they do, they have to think in terms of whether an all-bus line is better than a bus-rail combination. Reply Bulbous Member sinceJune 2004 9 posts Posted by Bulbous on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 1:47 AM The real wonder is that the cost to the government of the interstate system seems to be over looked, but the cost of a national rail system is too much to bear? I live in australia, and the problem here is the same, with people not caring about roads being built, but if you spend the same amount of money on passenger rail, then everyone complains that it is not well spent. They all fail to realise that the roads will probably not need expansion due to the thousands of people who will now travel by a competitive rail alternative...... the above is because in Perth, we are building rail lines down the centre of our freeways, with stations at all the major interchanges, and this is great advertising for the system when the trains fly past the people stuck in traffic jams...... :) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, April 25, 2005 10:12 PM North America is unique in its subsidies of airlines, air controllers, airports & screening personnel, minuscule landing fees; vs property taxes, a freight oriented mentality ( Pandora's Box in itself), the sacred cow of speed being essential, an administration that backs up air service no matter what while essentially ignoring rail service, freight schedules that DO delay passenger trains, only one Auto-train - - - and that is just scraping the surface. True costs and efficiencies need homework to be revealed. And how many are in favor of putting a lot of those Interstate-hogging semis on the railroad? No one likes to wait in line to be screened, sit in a seat made for midgets, go through boaring and deplaning like a herd of catle, to ride in a cigar-shaped dehumanizing vehicle. They do it because they are in a hurry. And they have to give a little on the speed end when the weather is uncooperative, when some bean-counter disallows connections between flights because of said weather delays and lets people go whistle until the next flight. Great way to live if you like association with sardines. Edna St. Vincent Millay is not the only one who enjoys trains, for many, many reasons. JD McFarland Reply Edit UPTRAIN Member sinceJune 2002 From: Independence, MO 1,570 posts Posted by UPTRAIN on Monday, April 25, 2005 9:35 PM Southwest Airlines is still cheaper between St. Louis and Chicago than Amtrak is from Poplar Bluff, MO to Chicago. Pump Reply nobullchitbids Member sinceFebruary 2012 257 posts Posted by nobullchitbids on Monday, April 25, 2005 8:42 PM The real issue re passenger rail service to some extent has nothing to do with fares or subsidies. Indeed, Connecticut recently did a study of its commuter and Amtrak services and concluded that, to the extent cost be the only issue, it would be cheaper to kill the subsidies (which would kill the trains) and buy all the riders cars or vans. Compared to highway use and highway options, the ridership is limited, and then there is the problem of setting up and paying for the final leg of the journey (which probably is nowhere near a train station). Amtrak is far more expensive than Metro, and to some extent the fares are silly, given one can take a subsidized bus for as little as a tenth of the cost of a train ticket (downside: trip does take longer). But, in the end, what many of the politicians will look at is whether we really want all of those additional cars and vans clogging the roads? If the environmentalists whine louder than the taxpayers, it is obvious what legislatures will do. Reply DSchmitt Member sinceSeptember 2003 From: California - moved to North Carolina 2018 4,422 posts Posted by DSchmitt on Monday, April 25, 2005 8:22 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by morseman No mention in this forum comparing Via Rail & Amtrak Several months ago I compared prices for a trip from Toronto to VCancouver on Via with a trip on the same dates from Philadelphia to Vancouver. Price was nearly double on Via even taking into account the exchange on the Cdn/US dollar. Booked Amtrak but had to cancel account our travelling companions became sick. Just got back from Amtrak trip Philly-Ft.Lauderdale. Train was packed both directions, Meals were much improved, Found price quite reasonable. Most passengers in sleepers were 30-50 Yrs old . My wife and I will continue to take one or two Amtrak tripa a year and quite often include it with a cruise. Interesting: the fare on Via compared to Amtrak. One of the excuses for Amtrak fares low is the low cost of gasoline in the USA. I believe the cost of gas in Canada is not much higher than in the US. I started this thread to get people thinking about Amtrak's fares, and whether they could be increased. Would increasing fares allow reduced subsidies and/or provide money needed to improve the system? Would, as some have suggested, there be such a large decrease in ridership that loses would be higher? Is it possible that while there would be an initial loss of riders, it would not be a permanent loss? I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it. I don't have a leg to stand on. Reply jimitimi Member sinceApril 2003 From: Andover, MN 33 posts Posted by jimitimi on Monday, April 25, 2005 8:03 PM I am only 40 and travel A/trak whenever possible when I need to go to Milwaukee or Chicago. The price is reasonable and I even get a "day" room as the meals are included and they are more comfortable. Until the Bush and Mineta Circus Act leaves town and gets realistic and gets off their "the states will pay" issue rail service will continue to drag along without any mandate. Let's look at the rail system as a SYSTEM and invest in it like the 1950's Defense Interstate Highway SYSTEM and we'd have high speed competetive trains running all over the country! The midwest HSR plan looks like a great way to go. I see the projections call for profitable incremental cost operation as long as the infrastructure is funded. Then charge a fare that covers the marginal costs and we'd be in business. As far as I last checked, the airline industry isn't exactly printing money, rather hemorraging red ink! Reply DSchmitt Member sinceSeptember 2003 From: California - moved to North Carolina 2018 4,422 posts Posted by DSchmitt on Monday, April 25, 2005 7:59 PM to thefox I chose San Francisco as the starting point because it is the major well known city closest to my home, therefore they are train trips I might take. The fares were for: California Zephyr to Salt Lake City Coast Starlight to Seattle Coast Starlight to Los Angeles None are Amtrak California trains. The Amtrak California trains are: Pacific Surfliner San Luis Opispo-San Diego, San Jauquins, Oakland-Stockton-Bakersfield, Sacramento-Stockton-Bakersfield Capitol Corridor, Auburn-Sacramento-Oakland-San Jose plus connecting buses in each case I was hoping that someone might be able to come up with subsidy information for European trains to compare with Amtrak. Another question is: How do the costs compare with peoples income in the Europe and in the US? I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it. I don't have a leg to stand on. Reply morseman Member sinceJuly 2004 From: Ontario - Canada 463 posts Posted by morseman on Monday, April 25, 2005 7:42 PM No mention in this forum comparing Via Rail & Amtrak Several months ago I compared prices for a trip from Toronto to VCancouver on Via with a trip on the same dates from Philadelphia to Vancouver. Price was nearly double on Via even taking into account the exchange on the Cdn/US dollar. Booked Amtrak but had to cancel account our travelling companions became sick. Just got back from Amtrak trip Philly-Ft.Lauderdale. Train was packed both directions, Meals were much improved, Found price quite reasonable. Most passengers in sleepers were 30-50 Yrs old . My wife and I will continue to take one or two Amtrak tripa a year and quite often include it with a cruise. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, April 25, 2005 7:18 PM geoffrey: don't judge Amtrak by the Sunset Limited... longest route=longest time to become late. And often times they [Amtrak] can't help it, it's the freight railroad's fault. To anyone else: Some people (e.g. U.S. pres, and his sec of transportation, Mineta) seem to think that the NE Corridor is profitable. On a day to day basis (this was before Acela got taken off the rails) yeah it is. However, over a period of time, say a year, maintenance costs still turn it into a negative profit. No railroad (or commuter rail, etc.) in the world (except maybe a luxury railroad that's not really about transportation) is actually profitable over a any real period of time. In fact the longer routes on Amtrak have shown that they make closer to breaking even (still a long shot) than the NE corridor. Why do you think the railroads wanted to unload passenger service in the first place? Privatization is definitely not the way to go. Why choose Amtrak at all? One big reason for me, I have been cross-continent MANY times by train and plane (and I'm not that old either) and I saw a heck of lot more of the continent and learned more by train than by plane. Finally, I don't remember who started the thread, but..... You can't use Amtrak California fares to compare Amtrak to anything except Amtrak California itself. They are different genres entirely in terms of fares and service, etc. In my opinion the premise of this thread was fairly ridiculous to start with. The fares are already high enough to turn many potential riders away. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, April 25, 2005 6:48 PM Gas in Europe at double the price of the USA ?- I wish-- The price of Unleaded Gas in Britain is nearly $10.00 PER GALLON. Road tax on my car is $350.00 per year. I was in Las Vegas in Febuary and paid around $1.92 a gallon. Tax on Gas is Around 70% here. Some rail journeys ie Manchester to London return cost around $300 return with Virgin for a total return mileage of around 390 miles. Having said all of that we had tickets from New Orleans for the return leg of 'The Sunset Ltd' to Orlando in February last year for a train that was 27 Hours late and turned into a bus. We won't be travelling with Amtrak again. Reply Edit darth9x9 Member sinceDecember 2002 From: US 665 posts Posted by darth9x9 on Monday, April 25, 2005 6:06 PM Comparing the fares of Amtrak to those in Europe is like comparing apples to oranges. More American's own cars per capita than Europeans. Also America's infrastructure favors the car where as Europe's favors rail. Americans have always loved their cars and the nation has dramatically catered to the automobile since WWII. On the other hand after WWII, Europe had little to no infrastructure with all of the destruction from the war. Europe decided to build a rail network - it was easy (easier) back then. I have spent several years in Europe and I love to travel by rail in Europe. They have trains that go most everywhere you need to and if not, a short cab ride will get you to your destination. The other thing is that the trains run frequently in Europe. And don't be one minute late for catching your train or you WILL be chasing it down the platform! Bill Carl (modeling Chessie and predecessors from 1973-1983) Member of Four County Society of Model Engineers NCE DCC Master Visit the FCSME at www.FCSME.org Modular railroading at its best! If it has an X in it, it sucks! And yes, I just had my modeler's license renewed last week! Reply dldance Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Near Promentory UT 1,590 posts Posted by dldance on Monday, April 25, 2005 4:09 PM Originally posted by spbed My theroy is as the elderly go to another place A/trak patronage will decrease as well as todays "baby" boomers or the next elderly come from the jet age not like todays elderly who came before the jet age & for the mosy part were afraid to fly. [:o)][8D] Interesting theory - but us "baby boomers" are just approaching our "Amtrak" years. The demographic of early/near retired people is the fastest growing demographic in North American and will be for the next 10 years. These are the ones with the money and the time to ride Amtrak. dd Reply Simon Reed Member sinceMarch 2005 From: Sulzerland, UK 337 posts Posted by Simon Reed on Monday, April 25, 2005 2:08 PM As a British lover of American passenger rail, I'd say unequivocally yes, Amtrak fares are lower than European fares over a comparable distance, but commuter rail fares are also lower by the same comparison. I'm not sure what that indicates other than possibly a difference in perceptions of the price the passenger is prepared to pay. I would, however, absolutely disagree with any suggestion that people in the US travel by rail because they either can't afford to fly or are of a generation which regards flying with concern or alarm. I've done the best part of 20,000 miles on Amtrak and would say that the vast majority of passengers on long distance services are travelling by rail because they WANT to. The American people I've met on, say, the Sunset or Empire Builder have been people with sufficient means to fly, but enough spare time to travel by rail and watch their country going by the window. Maybe many of the people who fall into that category are retired, thereby creating the impression that Amtrak is a resort of the elderly, but retirement and the free time and financial independence to take the train will hopefully come to us all. It's an infinately renewable market. I wonder to what degree Amtrak's farebox woes would be lessened by jacking up long distance fares to a "European" level whilst aggressively marketing the train as a leisure commodity to those rich in both cash and time - i.e. the domestic senior market and the independently minded European/Australasian traveller. A national passenger rail infrastructure - even one as moribund and fragmented as yours - is a national asset. I sincerely hope to be riding Amtrak for many years yet, and for your sake as well as mine. Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Monday, April 25, 2005 1:18 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Thanks so todays tix price is beyond the cost of a tix in 76 using todays money[:o)][:D] Originally posted by oltmannd Three times over! -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, April 25, 2005 12:35 PM My theroy is as the elderly go to another place A/trak patronage will decrease as well as todays "baby" boomers or the next elderly come from the jet age not like todays elderly who came before the jet age & for the mosy part were afraid to fly. [:o)][8D] Originally posted by Muddy Creek Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, April 25, 2005 12:30 PM Thanks so todays tix price is beyond the cost of a tix in 76 using todays money[:o)][:D] Originally posted by oltmannd Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply dldance Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Near Promentory UT 1,590 posts Posted by dldance on Monday, April 25, 2005 12:00 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by Muddy Creek QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Sure you may have seen a few "young" persons but in general those "young" people who use the train are a on vast minority to more elderly riders. Though my experience tells me otherwise, assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, may I respectfully ask, "So what?" Wayne I agree. So what? My own anecdotal experience with LD trains has been young people in the coaches, old people in the sleepers. A year ago, on a trip in a coach on the Crescent, I was just about the oldest guy in the coach at 48! My experience on the Cardinal and the Texas Eagle last month was about the same - young in coach and older in sleepers -- and both trains were full. The Cardinal had been overbooked in coach from Indianapolis to Chicago. dd Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Monday, April 25, 2005 11:12 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by Muddy Creek QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Sure you may have seen a few "young" persons but in general those "young" people who use the train are a on vast minority to more elderly riders. Though my experience tells me otherwise, assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, may I respectfully ask, "So what?" Wayne I agree. So what? My own anecdotal experience with LD trains has been young people in the coaches, old people in the sleepers. A year ago, on a trip in a coach on the Crescent, I was just about the oldest guy in the coach at 48! -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Monday, April 25, 2005 11:10 AM No math whiz needed. Just use gov't CPI calculator http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm $5.25 in 1976 = $17.84 in 2005 I think Amtrak has (or at least had, in recent history) a cost control issue. -Don -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, April 25, 2005 10:33 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Sure you may have seen a few "young" persons but in general those "young" people who use the train are a on vast minority to more elderly riders. Though my experience tells me otherwise, assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, may I respectfully ask, "So what?" Wayne Reply Edit 123 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Is that from Chic to Milw on that day room? [:o)][:)] Take me for a instant. I live in the lower SE & say to get to Chic by train would be a day or more. Airplane 4 1/2 hours including 1 hour drive time to & from the airport. Yes airlines such as Delta & United & US Air are in deep doo-doo from past giveaways when times were good. But el cheapo airlines such as SW, Jet Blue, Spirit are doing quite well. As a example I am going shortly from FLL to Omaha Mapquest says that is 3,200 miles round trip & I am paying only $120.00 for the R/T ticket or less then $0.04 per mile. Mapquest further says by car it is 25 hours vs air about 7 with the L/O in Chicago. As I have said the few that will give up hours for a train are in my opinion quite few & far between. [:o)][:D][:p] Hopefully you are aware that the main reason the interstate system was even built was so we can easily move very heavy military equipment from point A to point B most quickly. If you check out the law that enabled the I system you will find that EVERY underpass has to be I think 15'8" below the overpass so that large equipment like tanks & APV & things like that can pass underneath safely. [:o)][:D][:p] No matter in my opinion outside of the NEC train travel in the USA is for the few not the many sorry to say. [:p][:D] Originally posted by jimitimi Why would someone who obviously hates trains post in a train forum? It boggles the mind.... Reply Edit oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Amtrak fares too low? Posted by oltmannd on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 7:41 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Sorry no those "baby" boomer's grew up using jets so they will not graviate to trains in my opinion. For them hopping on a plane & being at their destination in just a few small hours is like hopping in your car & getting the AM newspaper. That is why I say that outside of the NEC A/trak patronage will continue to fall not increase so it will constantly need more & more $$$$$ as the years go by. [:o)][:D] Originally posted by dldance Originally posted by spbed This arguement is fataly flawed. The generation that knew nothing but rail for intercity travel abandoned it in a heartbeat for air and auto in the late 40s and 50s. Why? In part, because flying and driving were the "new thing" and the culture valued (and still values) "new and improved" over "old and tradtional". After 100 years of riding trains, people were ready for a change. The train was definitely not "space age". Us boomers grew up with flying and driving as the norm - just as we view suburban living as the norm. Neither seems particularly "fun" in it's own right. The Sunday Drive is a thing of the past. The idea of taking a train anywhere was a bad joke for most of the 1970s (with the exception of the NEC, perhaps). In the mid 70s, if you told someone you were taking a train somewhere, they'd ask why, not out of curiousity, but to question your sanity! Johnny Carson even used "Amtrak Breath" as an epithet on his show. What's happened since then, is that Amtrak has gotten much better and taking the train actually seems interesting and "new" to those who grew up with cars and planes. You don't get quite the strange looks now that you did back in the 70s when you told people you were taking the train. Trains have actually become "the new thing". Just look at California. The people who are riding the corridors in California and the NEC are not WWII vets who grew up with trains, but those born in the 60s and 70s who never gave trains a second thought growing up. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 7:16 AM Sorry no those "baby" boomer's grew up using jets so they will not graviate to trains in my opinion. For them hopping on a plane & being at their destination in just a few small hours is like hopping in your car & getting the AM newspaper. That is why I say that outside of the NEC A/trak patronage will continue to fall not increase so it will constantly need more & more $$$$$ as the years go by. [:o)][:D] Originally posted by dldance Originally posted by spbed Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 7:09 AM Is that from Chic to Milw on that day room? [:o)][:)] Take me for a instant. I live in the lower SE & say to get to Chic by train would be a day or more. Airplane 4 1/2 hours including 1 hour drive time to & from the airport. Yes airlines such as Delta & United & US Air are in deep doo-doo from past giveaways when times were good. But el cheapo airlines such as SW, Jet Blue, Spirit are doing quite well. As a example I am going shortly from FLL to Omaha Mapquest says that is 3,200 miles round trip & I am paying only $120.00 for the R/T ticket or less then $0.04 per mile. Mapquest further says by car it is 25 hours vs air about 7 with the L/O in Chicago. As I have said the few that will give up hours for a train are in my opinion quite few & far between. [:o)][:D][:p] Hopefully you are aware that the main reason the interstate system was even built was so we can easily move very heavy military equipment from point A to point B most quickly. If you check out the law that enabled the I system you will find that EVERY underpass has to be I think 15'8" below the overpass so that large equipment like tanks & APV & things like that can pass underneath safely. [:o)][:D][:p] No matter in my opinion outside of the NEC train travel in the USA is for the few not the many sorry to say. [:p][:D] Originally posted by jimitimi Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 6:42 AM If you could ride a fast train to Chicago from Popular Bluff, MO in less than 3 hours, why would anyone fly? The coach seats are larger than first class seats on an airliner, oops, Southwest doesn't have first class, and there is a diner and lounge car to relax in......with a much better view of the countryside..... With a HSR train service able to run a Dallas to Chicago route in 6-7 hours, and be able to offer three times the frequency of our now daily service, you wouldn't have to wake up before dawn to catch the train or arrive home near midnight.... Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 5:16 AM first of all. not all trains in europe are high speed. the dutch run there stuff at about 90 mph. they use flyovers to avoid slowing trains leaving the stations at the same time going to different destinations. They also run like clockwork and can because the distances between stops is MUCH smaller than in the states. Yes gas is much higher but the trains are running on a timely schedule and arealmost always on time. It's very easy to figure out when you need to leave and what train goes where. This also leads to easy connections with other trains. But best of all you can ask any conductor for a ticket for any destination in Europe and get a price, what train or trains you need just like airline reservations!! The conductors carry a palm pilot like device that links with the transit database. Works real well. Reply Edit nobullchitbids Member sinceFebruary 2012 257 posts Posted by nobullchitbids on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 2:40 AM Here, Here, mate! Los Angeles once had a system similar to what you describe, the "Big Red Cars" of the Pacific Electric, and the last time I was there (some 30 years ago), some of the freeways still had the right-of-way in the middle clearly visible (the freeways actually followed the rail lines during the expansion after the World War). But, the Big Red Cars are long gone: Back around 1950, General Motors decided that, if the cars disappeared, more people would have to buy automobiles; so, GM subsidized a bus company to come in and drive PE out of business, then dropped its subsidization so that the bus company had to cut back its service as well. By then, most of the Big Reds had been torched. Some of the wiser supervisors objected at the time that the loss of PE and transformation to an all-auto society would bathe LA in air pollution, but GM officials glibly told the majority on the board that they had nothing to worry about! Needless to say, it was not long before LA was the smog capital of the world. GM, however, did have several stellar years. More recently, I believe several commuter operations in the Chicago and Cleveland areas were able to operate successfully because the rail lines did parallel the freeways, and management was able to advertise against all of those "suckers" sitting in the impassable lines of traffic during rush hour. So, yes, there are markets here for commuter and light rail, but the problem still remains: How to get to the ultimate destination? If there are not good bus connections at both ends, given the size of American cities, the railroads simply cannot offer the service the public needs. City governments looking to increase use of alternative modes of transportation do need to think in terms of such an integrated approach, and when they do, they have to think in terms of whether an all-bus line is better than a bus-rail combination. Reply Bulbous Member sinceJune 2004 9 posts Posted by Bulbous on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 1:47 AM The real wonder is that the cost to the government of the interstate system seems to be over looked, but the cost of a national rail system is too much to bear? I live in australia, and the problem here is the same, with people not caring about roads being built, but if you spend the same amount of money on passenger rail, then everyone complains that it is not well spent. They all fail to realise that the roads will probably not need expansion due to the thousands of people who will now travel by a competitive rail alternative...... the above is because in Perth, we are building rail lines down the centre of our freeways, with stations at all the major interchanges, and this is great advertising for the system when the trains fly past the people stuck in traffic jams...... :) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, April 25, 2005 10:12 PM North America is unique in its subsidies of airlines, air controllers, airports & screening personnel, minuscule landing fees; vs property taxes, a freight oriented mentality ( Pandora's Box in itself), the sacred cow of speed being essential, an administration that backs up air service no matter what while essentially ignoring rail service, freight schedules that DO delay passenger trains, only one Auto-train - - - and that is just scraping the surface. True costs and efficiencies need homework to be revealed. And how many are in favor of putting a lot of those Interstate-hogging semis on the railroad? No one likes to wait in line to be screened, sit in a seat made for midgets, go through boaring and deplaning like a herd of catle, to ride in a cigar-shaped dehumanizing vehicle. They do it because they are in a hurry. And they have to give a little on the speed end when the weather is uncooperative, when some bean-counter disallows connections between flights because of said weather delays and lets people go whistle until the next flight. Great way to live if you like association with sardines. Edna St. Vincent Millay is not the only one who enjoys trains, for many, many reasons. JD McFarland Reply Edit UPTRAIN Member sinceJune 2002 From: Independence, MO 1,570 posts Posted by UPTRAIN on Monday, April 25, 2005 9:35 PM Southwest Airlines is still cheaper between St. Louis and Chicago than Amtrak is from Poplar Bluff, MO to Chicago. Pump Reply nobullchitbids Member sinceFebruary 2012 257 posts Posted by nobullchitbids on Monday, April 25, 2005 8:42 PM The real issue re passenger rail service to some extent has nothing to do with fares or subsidies. Indeed, Connecticut recently did a study of its commuter and Amtrak services and concluded that, to the extent cost be the only issue, it would be cheaper to kill the subsidies (which would kill the trains) and buy all the riders cars or vans. Compared to highway use and highway options, the ridership is limited, and then there is the problem of setting up and paying for the final leg of the journey (which probably is nowhere near a train station). Amtrak is far more expensive than Metro, and to some extent the fares are silly, given one can take a subsidized bus for as little as a tenth of the cost of a train ticket (downside: trip does take longer). But, in the end, what many of the politicians will look at is whether we really want all of those additional cars and vans clogging the roads? If the environmentalists whine louder than the taxpayers, it is obvious what legislatures will do. Reply DSchmitt Member sinceSeptember 2003 From: California - moved to North Carolina 2018 4,422 posts Posted by DSchmitt on Monday, April 25, 2005 8:22 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by morseman No mention in this forum comparing Via Rail & Amtrak Several months ago I compared prices for a trip from Toronto to VCancouver on Via with a trip on the same dates from Philadelphia to Vancouver. Price was nearly double on Via even taking into account the exchange on the Cdn/US dollar. Booked Amtrak but had to cancel account our travelling companions became sick. Just got back from Amtrak trip Philly-Ft.Lauderdale. Train was packed both directions, Meals were much improved, Found price quite reasonable. Most passengers in sleepers were 30-50 Yrs old . My wife and I will continue to take one or two Amtrak tripa a year and quite often include it with a cruise. Interesting: the fare on Via compared to Amtrak. One of the excuses for Amtrak fares low is the low cost of gasoline in the USA. I believe the cost of gas in Canada is not much higher than in the US. I started this thread to get people thinking about Amtrak's fares, and whether they could be increased. Would increasing fares allow reduced subsidies and/or provide money needed to improve the system? Would, as some have suggested, there be such a large decrease in ridership that loses would be higher? Is it possible that while there would be an initial loss of riders, it would not be a permanent loss? I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it. I don't have a leg to stand on. Reply jimitimi Member sinceApril 2003 From: Andover, MN 33 posts Posted by jimitimi on Monday, April 25, 2005 8:03 PM I am only 40 and travel A/trak whenever possible when I need to go to Milwaukee or Chicago. The price is reasonable and I even get a "day" room as the meals are included and they are more comfortable. Until the Bush and Mineta Circus Act leaves town and gets realistic and gets off their "the states will pay" issue rail service will continue to drag along without any mandate. Let's look at the rail system as a SYSTEM and invest in it like the 1950's Defense Interstate Highway SYSTEM and we'd have high speed competetive trains running all over the country! The midwest HSR plan looks like a great way to go. I see the projections call for profitable incremental cost operation as long as the infrastructure is funded. Then charge a fare that covers the marginal costs and we'd be in business. As far as I last checked, the airline industry isn't exactly printing money, rather hemorraging red ink! Reply DSchmitt Member sinceSeptember 2003 From: California - moved to North Carolina 2018 4,422 posts Posted by DSchmitt on Monday, April 25, 2005 7:59 PM to thefox I chose San Francisco as the starting point because it is the major well known city closest to my home, therefore they are train trips I might take. The fares were for: California Zephyr to Salt Lake City Coast Starlight to Seattle Coast Starlight to Los Angeles None are Amtrak California trains. The Amtrak California trains are: Pacific Surfliner San Luis Opispo-San Diego, San Jauquins, Oakland-Stockton-Bakersfield, Sacramento-Stockton-Bakersfield Capitol Corridor, Auburn-Sacramento-Oakland-San Jose plus connecting buses in each case I was hoping that someone might be able to come up with subsidy information for European trains to compare with Amtrak. Another question is: How do the costs compare with peoples income in the Europe and in the US? I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it. I don't have a leg to stand on. Reply morseman Member sinceJuly 2004 From: Ontario - Canada 463 posts Posted by morseman on Monday, April 25, 2005 7:42 PM No mention in this forum comparing Via Rail & Amtrak Several months ago I compared prices for a trip from Toronto to VCancouver on Via with a trip on the same dates from Philadelphia to Vancouver. Price was nearly double on Via even taking into account the exchange on the Cdn/US dollar. Booked Amtrak but had to cancel account our travelling companions became sick. Just got back from Amtrak trip Philly-Ft.Lauderdale. Train was packed both directions, Meals were much improved, Found price quite reasonable. Most passengers in sleepers were 30-50 Yrs old . My wife and I will continue to take one or two Amtrak tripa a year and quite often include it with a cruise. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, April 25, 2005 7:18 PM geoffrey: don't judge Amtrak by the Sunset Limited... longest route=longest time to become late. And often times they [Amtrak] can't help it, it's the freight railroad's fault. To anyone else: Some people (e.g. U.S. pres, and his sec of transportation, Mineta) seem to think that the NE Corridor is profitable. On a day to day basis (this was before Acela got taken off the rails) yeah it is. However, over a period of time, say a year, maintenance costs still turn it into a negative profit. No railroad (or commuter rail, etc.) in the world (except maybe a luxury railroad that's not really about transportation) is actually profitable over a any real period of time. In fact the longer routes on Amtrak have shown that they make closer to breaking even (still a long shot) than the NE corridor. Why do you think the railroads wanted to unload passenger service in the first place? Privatization is definitely not the way to go. Why choose Amtrak at all? One big reason for me, I have been cross-continent MANY times by train and plane (and I'm not that old either) and I saw a heck of lot more of the continent and learned more by train than by plane. Finally, I don't remember who started the thread, but..... You can't use Amtrak California fares to compare Amtrak to anything except Amtrak California itself. They are different genres entirely in terms of fares and service, etc. In my opinion the premise of this thread was fairly ridiculous to start with. The fares are already high enough to turn many potential riders away. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, April 25, 2005 6:48 PM Gas in Europe at double the price of the USA ?- I wish-- The price of Unleaded Gas in Britain is nearly $10.00 PER GALLON. Road tax on my car is $350.00 per year. I was in Las Vegas in Febuary and paid around $1.92 a gallon. Tax on Gas is Around 70% here. Some rail journeys ie Manchester to London return cost around $300 return with Virgin for a total return mileage of around 390 miles. Having said all of that we had tickets from New Orleans for the return leg of 'The Sunset Ltd' to Orlando in February last year for a train that was 27 Hours late and turned into a bus. We won't be travelling with Amtrak again. Reply Edit darth9x9 Member sinceDecember 2002 From: US 665 posts Posted by darth9x9 on Monday, April 25, 2005 6:06 PM Comparing the fares of Amtrak to those in Europe is like comparing apples to oranges. More American's own cars per capita than Europeans. Also America's infrastructure favors the car where as Europe's favors rail. Americans have always loved their cars and the nation has dramatically catered to the automobile since WWII. On the other hand after WWII, Europe had little to no infrastructure with all of the destruction from the war. Europe decided to build a rail network - it was easy (easier) back then. I have spent several years in Europe and I love to travel by rail in Europe. They have trains that go most everywhere you need to and if not, a short cab ride will get you to your destination. The other thing is that the trains run frequently in Europe. And don't be one minute late for catching your train or you WILL be chasing it down the platform! Bill Carl (modeling Chessie and predecessors from 1973-1983) Member of Four County Society of Model Engineers NCE DCC Master Visit the FCSME at www.FCSME.org Modular railroading at its best! If it has an X in it, it sucks! And yes, I just had my modeler's license renewed last week! Reply dldance Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Near Promentory UT 1,590 posts Posted by dldance on Monday, April 25, 2005 4:09 PM Originally posted by spbed My theroy is as the elderly go to another place A/trak patronage will decrease as well as todays "baby" boomers or the next elderly come from the jet age not like todays elderly who came before the jet age & for the mosy part were afraid to fly. [:o)][8D] Interesting theory - but us "baby boomers" are just approaching our "Amtrak" years. The demographic of early/near retired people is the fastest growing demographic in North American and will be for the next 10 years. These are the ones with the money and the time to ride Amtrak. dd Reply Simon Reed Member sinceMarch 2005 From: Sulzerland, UK 337 posts Posted by Simon Reed on Monday, April 25, 2005 2:08 PM As a British lover of American passenger rail, I'd say unequivocally yes, Amtrak fares are lower than European fares over a comparable distance, but commuter rail fares are also lower by the same comparison. I'm not sure what that indicates other than possibly a difference in perceptions of the price the passenger is prepared to pay. I would, however, absolutely disagree with any suggestion that people in the US travel by rail because they either can't afford to fly or are of a generation which regards flying with concern or alarm. I've done the best part of 20,000 miles on Amtrak and would say that the vast majority of passengers on long distance services are travelling by rail because they WANT to. The American people I've met on, say, the Sunset or Empire Builder have been people with sufficient means to fly, but enough spare time to travel by rail and watch their country going by the window. Maybe many of the people who fall into that category are retired, thereby creating the impression that Amtrak is a resort of the elderly, but retirement and the free time and financial independence to take the train will hopefully come to us all. It's an infinately renewable market. I wonder to what degree Amtrak's farebox woes would be lessened by jacking up long distance fares to a "European" level whilst aggressively marketing the train as a leisure commodity to those rich in both cash and time - i.e. the domestic senior market and the independently minded European/Australasian traveller. A national passenger rail infrastructure - even one as moribund and fragmented as yours - is a national asset. I sincerely hope to be riding Amtrak for many years yet, and for your sake as well as mine. Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Monday, April 25, 2005 1:18 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Thanks so todays tix price is beyond the cost of a tix in 76 using todays money[:o)][:D] Originally posted by oltmannd Three times over! -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, April 25, 2005 12:35 PM My theroy is as the elderly go to another place A/trak patronage will decrease as well as todays "baby" boomers or the next elderly come from the jet age not like todays elderly who came before the jet age & for the mosy part were afraid to fly. [:o)][8D] Originally posted by Muddy Creek Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, April 25, 2005 12:30 PM Thanks so todays tix price is beyond the cost of a tix in 76 using todays money[:o)][:D] Originally posted by oltmannd Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply dldance Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Near Promentory UT 1,590 posts Posted by dldance on Monday, April 25, 2005 12:00 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by Muddy Creek QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Sure you may have seen a few "young" persons but in general those "young" people who use the train are a on vast minority to more elderly riders. Though my experience tells me otherwise, assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, may I respectfully ask, "So what?" Wayne I agree. So what? My own anecdotal experience with LD trains has been young people in the coaches, old people in the sleepers. A year ago, on a trip in a coach on the Crescent, I was just about the oldest guy in the coach at 48! My experience on the Cardinal and the Texas Eagle last month was about the same - young in coach and older in sleepers -- and both trains were full. The Cardinal had been overbooked in coach from Indianapolis to Chicago. dd Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Monday, April 25, 2005 11:12 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by Muddy Creek QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Sure you may have seen a few "young" persons but in general those "young" people who use the train are a on vast minority to more elderly riders. Though my experience tells me otherwise, assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, may I respectfully ask, "So what?" Wayne I agree. So what? My own anecdotal experience with LD trains has been young people in the coaches, old people in the sleepers. A year ago, on a trip in a coach on the Crescent, I was just about the oldest guy in the coach at 48! -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Monday, April 25, 2005 11:10 AM No math whiz needed. Just use gov't CPI calculator http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm $5.25 in 1976 = $17.84 in 2005 I think Amtrak has (or at least had, in recent history) a cost control issue. -Don -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, April 25, 2005 10:33 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Sure you may have seen a few "young" persons but in general those "young" people who use the train are a on vast minority to more elderly riders. Though my experience tells me otherwise, assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, may I respectfully ask, "So what?" Wayne Reply Edit 123 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Originally posted by jimitimi
QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Sorry no those "baby" boomer's grew up using jets so they will not graviate to trains in my opinion. For them hopping on a plane & being at their destination in just a few small hours is like hopping in your car & getting the AM newspaper. That is why I say that outside of the NEC A/trak patronage will continue to fall not increase so it will constantly need more & more $$$$$ as the years go by. [:o)][:D] Originally posted by dldance Originally posted by spbed This arguement is fataly flawed. The generation that knew nothing but rail for intercity travel abandoned it in a heartbeat for air and auto in the late 40s and 50s. Why? In part, because flying and driving were the "new thing" and the culture valued (and still values) "new and improved" over "old and tradtional". After 100 years of riding trains, people were ready for a change. The train was definitely not "space age". Us boomers grew up with flying and driving as the norm - just as we view suburban living as the norm. Neither seems particularly "fun" in it's own right. The Sunday Drive is a thing of the past. The idea of taking a train anywhere was a bad joke for most of the 1970s (with the exception of the NEC, perhaps). In the mid 70s, if you told someone you were taking a train somewhere, they'd ask why, not out of curiousity, but to question your sanity! Johnny Carson even used "Amtrak Breath" as an epithet on his show. What's happened since then, is that Amtrak has gotten much better and taking the train actually seems interesting and "new" to those who grew up with cars and planes. You don't get quite the strange looks now that you did back in the 70s when you told people you were taking the train. Trains have actually become "the new thing". Just look at California. The people who are riding the corridors in California and the NEC are not WWII vets who grew up with trains, but those born in the 60s and 70s who never gave trains a second thought growing up. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 7:16 AM Sorry no those "baby" boomer's grew up using jets so they will not graviate to trains in my opinion. For them hopping on a plane & being at their destination in just a few small hours is like hopping in your car & getting the AM newspaper. That is why I say that outside of the NEC A/trak patronage will continue to fall not increase so it will constantly need more & more $$$$$ as the years go by. [:o)][:D] Originally posted by dldance Originally posted by spbed Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 7:09 AM Is that from Chic to Milw on that day room? [:o)][:)] Take me for a instant. I live in the lower SE & say to get to Chic by train would be a day or more. Airplane 4 1/2 hours including 1 hour drive time to & from the airport. Yes airlines such as Delta & United & US Air are in deep doo-doo from past giveaways when times were good. But el cheapo airlines such as SW, Jet Blue, Spirit are doing quite well. As a example I am going shortly from FLL to Omaha Mapquest says that is 3,200 miles round trip & I am paying only $120.00 for the R/T ticket or less then $0.04 per mile. Mapquest further says by car it is 25 hours vs air about 7 with the L/O in Chicago. As I have said the few that will give up hours for a train are in my opinion quite few & far between. [:o)][:D][:p] Hopefully you are aware that the main reason the interstate system was even built was so we can easily move very heavy military equipment from point A to point B most quickly. If you check out the law that enabled the I system you will find that EVERY underpass has to be I think 15'8" below the overpass so that large equipment like tanks & APV & things like that can pass underneath safely. [:o)][:D][:p] No matter in my opinion outside of the NEC train travel in the USA is for the few not the many sorry to say. [:p][:D] Originally posted by jimitimi Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 6:42 AM If you could ride a fast train to Chicago from Popular Bluff, MO in less than 3 hours, why would anyone fly? The coach seats are larger than first class seats on an airliner, oops, Southwest doesn't have first class, and there is a diner and lounge car to relax in......with a much better view of the countryside..... With a HSR train service able to run a Dallas to Chicago route in 6-7 hours, and be able to offer three times the frequency of our now daily service, you wouldn't have to wake up before dawn to catch the train or arrive home near midnight.... Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 5:16 AM first of all. not all trains in europe are high speed. the dutch run there stuff at about 90 mph. they use flyovers to avoid slowing trains leaving the stations at the same time going to different destinations. They also run like clockwork and can because the distances between stops is MUCH smaller than in the states. Yes gas is much higher but the trains are running on a timely schedule and arealmost always on time. It's very easy to figure out when you need to leave and what train goes where. This also leads to easy connections with other trains. But best of all you can ask any conductor for a ticket for any destination in Europe and get a price, what train or trains you need just like airline reservations!! The conductors carry a palm pilot like device that links with the transit database. Works real well. Reply Edit nobullchitbids Member sinceFebruary 2012 257 posts Posted by nobullchitbids on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 2:40 AM Here, Here, mate! Los Angeles once had a system similar to what you describe, the "Big Red Cars" of the Pacific Electric, and the last time I was there (some 30 years ago), some of the freeways still had the right-of-way in the middle clearly visible (the freeways actually followed the rail lines during the expansion after the World War). But, the Big Red Cars are long gone: Back around 1950, General Motors decided that, if the cars disappeared, more people would have to buy automobiles; so, GM subsidized a bus company to come in and drive PE out of business, then dropped its subsidization so that the bus company had to cut back its service as well. By then, most of the Big Reds had been torched. Some of the wiser supervisors objected at the time that the loss of PE and transformation to an all-auto society would bathe LA in air pollution, but GM officials glibly told the majority on the board that they had nothing to worry about! Needless to say, it was not long before LA was the smog capital of the world. GM, however, did have several stellar years. More recently, I believe several commuter operations in the Chicago and Cleveland areas were able to operate successfully because the rail lines did parallel the freeways, and management was able to advertise against all of those "suckers" sitting in the impassable lines of traffic during rush hour. So, yes, there are markets here for commuter and light rail, but the problem still remains: How to get to the ultimate destination? If there are not good bus connections at both ends, given the size of American cities, the railroads simply cannot offer the service the public needs. City governments looking to increase use of alternative modes of transportation do need to think in terms of such an integrated approach, and when they do, they have to think in terms of whether an all-bus line is better than a bus-rail combination. Reply Bulbous Member sinceJune 2004 9 posts Posted by Bulbous on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 1:47 AM The real wonder is that the cost to the government of the interstate system seems to be over looked, but the cost of a national rail system is too much to bear? I live in australia, and the problem here is the same, with people not caring about roads being built, but if you spend the same amount of money on passenger rail, then everyone complains that it is not well spent. They all fail to realise that the roads will probably not need expansion due to the thousands of people who will now travel by a competitive rail alternative...... the above is because in Perth, we are building rail lines down the centre of our freeways, with stations at all the major interchanges, and this is great advertising for the system when the trains fly past the people stuck in traffic jams...... :) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, April 25, 2005 10:12 PM North America is unique in its subsidies of airlines, air controllers, airports & screening personnel, minuscule landing fees; vs property taxes, a freight oriented mentality ( Pandora's Box in itself), the sacred cow of speed being essential, an administration that backs up air service no matter what while essentially ignoring rail service, freight schedules that DO delay passenger trains, only one Auto-train - - - and that is just scraping the surface. True costs and efficiencies need homework to be revealed. And how many are in favor of putting a lot of those Interstate-hogging semis on the railroad? No one likes to wait in line to be screened, sit in a seat made for midgets, go through boaring and deplaning like a herd of catle, to ride in a cigar-shaped dehumanizing vehicle. They do it because they are in a hurry. And they have to give a little on the speed end when the weather is uncooperative, when some bean-counter disallows connections between flights because of said weather delays and lets people go whistle until the next flight. Great way to live if you like association with sardines. Edna St. Vincent Millay is not the only one who enjoys trains, for many, many reasons. JD McFarland Reply Edit UPTRAIN Member sinceJune 2002 From: Independence, MO 1,570 posts Posted by UPTRAIN on Monday, April 25, 2005 9:35 PM Southwest Airlines is still cheaper between St. Louis and Chicago than Amtrak is from Poplar Bluff, MO to Chicago. Pump Reply nobullchitbids Member sinceFebruary 2012 257 posts Posted by nobullchitbids on Monday, April 25, 2005 8:42 PM The real issue re passenger rail service to some extent has nothing to do with fares or subsidies. Indeed, Connecticut recently did a study of its commuter and Amtrak services and concluded that, to the extent cost be the only issue, it would be cheaper to kill the subsidies (which would kill the trains) and buy all the riders cars or vans. Compared to highway use and highway options, the ridership is limited, and then there is the problem of setting up and paying for the final leg of the journey (which probably is nowhere near a train station). Amtrak is far more expensive than Metro, and to some extent the fares are silly, given one can take a subsidized bus for as little as a tenth of the cost of a train ticket (downside: trip does take longer). But, in the end, what many of the politicians will look at is whether we really want all of those additional cars and vans clogging the roads? If the environmentalists whine louder than the taxpayers, it is obvious what legislatures will do. Reply DSchmitt Member sinceSeptember 2003 From: California - moved to North Carolina 2018 4,422 posts Posted by DSchmitt on Monday, April 25, 2005 8:22 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by morseman No mention in this forum comparing Via Rail & Amtrak Several months ago I compared prices for a trip from Toronto to VCancouver on Via with a trip on the same dates from Philadelphia to Vancouver. Price was nearly double on Via even taking into account the exchange on the Cdn/US dollar. Booked Amtrak but had to cancel account our travelling companions became sick. Just got back from Amtrak trip Philly-Ft.Lauderdale. Train was packed both directions, Meals were much improved, Found price quite reasonable. Most passengers in sleepers were 30-50 Yrs old . My wife and I will continue to take one or two Amtrak tripa a year and quite often include it with a cruise. Interesting: the fare on Via compared to Amtrak. One of the excuses for Amtrak fares low is the low cost of gasoline in the USA. I believe the cost of gas in Canada is not much higher than in the US. I started this thread to get people thinking about Amtrak's fares, and whether they could be increased. Would increasing fares allow reduced subsidies and/or provide money needed to improve the system? Would, as some have suggested, there be such a large decrease in ridership that loses would be higher? Is it possible that while there would be an initial loss of riders, it would not be a permanent loss? I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it. I don't have a leg to stand on. Reply jimitimi Member sinceApril 2003 From: Andover, MN 33 posts Posted by jimitimi on Monday, April 25, 2005 8:03 PM I am only 40 and travel A/trak whenever possible when I need to go to Milwaukee or Chicago. The price is reasonable and I even get a "day" room as the meals are included and they are more comfortable. Until the Bush and Mineta Circus Act leaves town and gets realistic and gets off their "the states will pay" issue rail service will continue to drag along without any mandate. Let's look at the rail system as a SYSTEM and invest in it like the 1950's Defense Interstate Highway SYSTEM and we'd have high speed competetive trains running all over the country! The midwest HSR plan looks like a great way to go. I see the projections call for profitable incremental cost operation as long as the infrastructure is funded. Then charge a fare that covers the marginal costs and we'd be in business. As far as I last checked, the airline industry isn't exactly printing money, rather hemorraging red ink! Reply DSchmitt Member sinceSeptember 2003 From: California - moved to North Carolina 2018 4,422 posts Posted by DSchmitt on Monday, April 25, 2005 7:59 PM to thefox I chose San Francisco as the starting point because it is the major well known city closest to my home, therefore they are train trips I might take. The fares were for: California Zephyr to Salt Lake City Coast Starlight to Seattle Coast Starlight to Los Angeles None are Amtrak California trains. The Amtrak California trains are: Pacific Surfliner San Luis Opispo-San Diego, San Jauquins, Oakland-Stockton-Bakersfield, Sacramento-Stockton-Bakersfield Capitol Corridor, Auburn-Sacramento-Oakland-San Jose plus connecting buses in each case I was hoping that someone might be able to come up with subsidy information for European trains to compare with Amtrak. Another question is: How do the costs compare with peoples income in the Europe and in the US? I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it. I don't have a leg to stand on. Reply morseman Member sinceJuly 2004 From: Ontario - Canada 463 posts Posted by morseman on Monday, April 25, 2005 7:42 PM No mention in this forum comparing Via Rail & Amtrak Several months ago I compared prices for a trip from Toronto to VCancouver on Via with a trip on the same dates from Philadelphia to Vancouver. Price was nearly double on Via even taking into account the exchange on the Cdn/US dollar. Booked Amtrak but had to cancel account our travelling companions became sick. Just got back from Amtrak trip Philly-Ft.Lauderdale. Train was packed both directions, Meals were much improved, Found price quite reasonable. Most passengers in sleepers were 30-50 Yrs old . My wife and I will continue to take one or two Amtrak tripa a year and quite often include it with a cruise. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, April 25, 2005 7:18 PM geoffrey: don't judge Amtrak by the Sunset Limited... longest route=longest time to become late. And often times they [Amtrak] can't help it, it's the freight railroad's fault. To anyone else: Some people (e.g. U.S. pres, and his sec of transportation, Mineta) seem to think that the NE Corridor is profitable. On a day to day basis (this was before Acela got taken off the rails) yeah it is. However, over a period of time, say a year, maintenance costs still turn it into a negative profit. No railroad (or commuter rail, etc.) in the world (except maybe a luxury railroad that's not really about transportation) is actually profitable over a any real period of time. In fact the longer routes on Amtrak have shown that they make closer to breaking even (still a long shot) than the NE corridor. Why do you think the railroads wanted to unload passenger service in the first place? Privatization is definitely not the way to go. Why choose Amtrak at all? One big reason for me, I have been cross-continent MANY times by train and plane (and I'm not that old either) and I saw a heck of lot more of the continent and learned more by train than by plane. Finally, I don't remember who started the thread, but..... You can't use Amtrak California fares to compare Amtrak to anything except Amtrak California itself. They are different genres entirely in terms of fares and service, etc. In my opinion the premise of this thread was fairly ridiculous to start with. The fares are already high enough to turn many potential riders away. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, April 25, 2005 6:48 PM Gas in Europe at double the price of the USA ?- I wish-- The price of Unleaded Gas in Britain is nearly $10.00 PER GALLON. Road tax on my car is $350.00 per year. I was in Las Vegas in Febuary and paid around $1.92 a gallon. Tax on Gas is Around 70% here. Some rail journeys ie Manchester to London return cost around $300 return with Virgin for a total return mileage of around 390 miles. Having said all of that we had tickets from New Orleans for the return leg of 'The Sunset Ltd' to Orlando in February last year for a train that was 27 Hours late and turned into a bus. We won't be travelling with Amtrak again. Reply Edit darth9x9 Member sinceDecember 2002 From: US 665 posts Posted by darth9x9 on Monday, April 25, 2005 6:06 PM Comparing the fares of Amtrak to those in Europe is like comparing apples to oranges. More American's own cars per capita than Europeans. Also America's infrastructure favors the car where as Europe's favors rail. Americans have always loved their cars and the nation has dramatically catered to the automobile since WWII. On the other hand after WWII, Europe had little to no infrastructure with all of the destruction from the war. Europe decided to build a rail network - it was easy (easier) back then. I have spent several years in Europe and I love to travel by rail in Europe. They have trains that go most everywhere you need to and if not, a short cab ride will get you to your destination. The other thing is that the trains run frequently in Europe. And don't be one minute late for catching your train or you WILL be chasing it down the platform! Bill Carl (modeling Chessie and predecessors from 1973-1983) Member of Four County Society of Model Engineers NCE DCC Master Visit the FCSME at www.FCSME.org Modular railroading at its best! If it has an X in it, it sucks! And yes, I just had my modeler's license renewed last week! Reply dldance Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Near Promentory UT 1,590 posts Posted by dldance on Monday, April 25, 2005 4:09 PM Originally posted by spbed My theroy is as the elderly go to another place A/trak patronage will decrease as well as todays "baby" boomers or the next elderly come from the jet age not like todays elderly who came before the jet age & for the mosy part were afraid to fly. [:o)][8D] Interesting theory - but us "baby boomers" are just approaching our "Amtrak" years. The demographic of early/near retired people is the fastest growing demographic in North American and will be for the next 10 years. These are the ones with the money and the time to ride Amtrak. dd Reply Simon Reed Member sinceMarch 2005 From: Sulzerland, UK 337 posts Posted by Simon Reed on Monday, April 25, 2005 2:08 PM As a British lover of American passenger rail, I'd say unequivocally yes, Amtrak fares are lower than European fares over a comparable distance, but commuter rail fares are also lower by the same comparison. I'm not sure what that indicates other than possibly a difference in perceptions of the price the passenger is prepared to pay. I would, however, absolutely disagree with any suggestion that people in the US travel by rail because they either can't afford to fly or are of a generation which regards flying with concern or alarm. I've done the best part of 20,000 miles on Amtrak and would say that the vast majority of passengers on long distance services are travelling by rail because they WANT to. The American people I've met on, say, the Sunset or Empire Builder have been people with sufficient means to fly, but enough spare time to travel by rail and watch their country going by the window. Maybe many of the people who fall into that category are retired, thereby creating the impression that Amtrak is a resort of the elderly, but retirement and the free time and financial independence to take the train will hopefully come to us all. It's an infinately renewable market. I wonder to what degree Amtrak's farebox woes would be lessened by jacking up long distance fares to a "European" level whilst aggressively marketing the train as a leisure commodity to those rich in both cash and time - i.e. the domestic senior market and the independently minded European/Australasian traveller. A national passenger rail infrastructure - even one as moribund and fragmented as yours - is a national asset. I sincerely hope to be riding Amtrak for many years yet, and for your sake as well as mine. Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Monday, April 25, 2005 1:18 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Thanks so todays tix price is beyond the cost of a tix in 76 using todays money[:o)][:D] Originally posted by oltmannd Three times over! -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, April 25, 2005 12:35 PM My theroy is as the elderly go to another place A/trak patronage will decrease as well as todays "baby" boomers or the next elderly come from the jet age not like todays elderly who came before the jet age & for the mosy part were afraid to fly. [:o)][8D] Originally posted by Muddy Creek Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, April 25, 2005 12:30 PM Thanks so todays tix price is beyond the cost of a tix in 76 using todays money[:o)][:D] Originally posted by oltmannd Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply dldance Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Near Promentory UT 1,590 posts Posted by dldance on Monday, April 25, 2005 12:00 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by Muddy Creek QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Sure you may have seen a few "young" persons but in general those "young" people who use the train are a on vast minority to more elderly riders. Though my experience tells me otherwise, assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, may I respectfully ask, "So what?" Wayne I agree. So what? My own anecdotal experience with LD trains has been young people in the coaches, old people in the sleepers. A year ago, on a trip in a coach on the Crescent, I was just about the oldest guy in the coach at 48! My experience on the Cardinal and the Texas Eagle last month was about the same - young in coach and older in sleepers -- and both trains were full. The Cardinal had been overbooked in coach from Indianapolis to Chicago. dd Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Monday, April 25, 2005 11:12 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by Muddy Creek QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Sure you may have seen a few "young" persons but in general those "young" people who use the train are a on vast minority to more elderly riders. Though my experience tells me otherwise, assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, may I respectfully ask, "So what?" Wayne I agree. So what? My own anecdotal experience with LD trains has been young people in the coaches, old people in the sleepers. A year ago, on a trip in a coach on the Crescent, I was just about the oldest guy in the coach at 48! -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Monday, April 25, 2005 11:10 AM No math whiz needed. Just use gov't CPI calculator http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm $5.25 in 1976 = $17.84 in 2005 I think Amtrak has (or at least had, in recent history) a cost control issue. -Don -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, April 25, 2005 10:33 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Sure you may have seen a few "young" persons but in general those "young" people who use the train are a on vast minority to more elderly riders. Though my experience tells me otherwise, assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, may I respectfully ask, "So what?" Wayne Reply Edit 123 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Originally posted by dldance Originally posted by spbed This arguement is fataly flawed. The generation that knew nothing but rail for intercity travel abandoned it in a heartbeat for air and auto in the late 40s and 50s. Why? In part, because flying and driving were the "new thing" and the culture valued (and still values) "new and improved" over "old and tradtional". After 100 years of riding trains, people were ready for a change. The train was definitely not "space age". Us boomers grew up with flying and driving as the norm - just as we view suburban living as the norm. Neither seems particularly "fun" in it's own right. The Sunday Drive is a thing of the past. The idea of taking a train anywhere was a bad joke for most of the 1970s (with the exception of the NEC, perhaps). In the mid 70s, if you told someone you were taking a train somewhere, they'd ask why, not out of curiousity, but to question your sanity! Johnny Carson even used "Amtrak Breath" as an epithet on his show. What's happened since then, is that Amtrak has gotten much better and taking the train actually seems interesting and "new" to those who grew up with cars and planes. You don't get quite the strange looks now that you did back in the 70s when you told people you were taking the train. Trains have actually become "the new thing". Just look at California. The people who are riding the corridors in California and the NEC are not WWII vets who grew up with trains, but those born in the 60s and 70s who never gave trains a second thought growing up. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 7:16 AM Sorry no those "baby" boomer's grew up using jets so they will not graviate to trains in my opinion. For them hopping on a plane & being at their destination in just a few small hours is like hopping in your car & getting the AM newspaper. That is why I say that outside of the NEC A/trak patronage will continue to fall not increase so it will constantly need more & more $$$$$ as the years go by. [:o)][:D] Originally posted by dldance Originally posted by spbed Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 7:09 AM Is that from Chic to Milw on that day room? [:o)][:)] Take me for a instant. I live in the lower SE & say to get to Chic by train would be a day or more. Airplane 4 1/2 hours including 1 hour drive time to & from the airport. Yes airlines such as Delta & United & US Air are in deep doo-doo from past giveaways when times were good. But el cheapo airlines such as SW, Jet Blue, Spirit are doing quite well. As a example I am going shortly from FLL to Omaha Mapquest says that is 3,200 miles round trip & I am paying only $120.00 for the R/T ticket or less then $0.04 per mile. Mapquest further says by car it is 25 hours vs air about 7 with the L/O in Chicago. As I have said the few that will give up hours for a train are in my opinion quite few & far between. [:o)][:D][:p] Hopefully you are aware that the main reason the interstate system was even built was so we can easily move very heavy military equipment from point A to point B most quickly. If you check out the law that enabled the I system you will find that EVERY underpass has to be I think 15'8" below the overpass so that large equipment like tanks & APV & things like that can pass underneath safely. [:o)][:D][:p] No matter in my opinion outside of the NEC train travel in the USA is for the few not the many sorry to say. [:p][:D] Originally posted by jimitimi Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 6:42 AM If you could ride a fast train to Chicago from Popular Bluff, MO in less than 3 hours, why would anyone fly? The coach seats are larger than first class seats on an airliner, oops, Southwest doesn't have first class, and there is a diner and lounge car to relax in......with a much better view of the countryside..... With a HSR train service able to run a Dallas to Chicago route in 6-7 hours, and be able to offer three times the frequency of our now daily service, you wouldn't have to wake up before dawn to catch the train or arrive home near midnight.... Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 5:16 AM first of all. not all trains in europe are high speed. the dutch run there stuff at about 90 mph. they use flyovers to avoid slowing trains leaving the stations at the same time going to different destinations. They also run like clockwork and can because the distances between stops is MUCH smaller than in the states. Yes gas is much higher but the trains are running on a timely schedule and arealmost always on time. It's very easy to figure out when you need to leave and what train goes where. This also leads to easy connections with other trains. But best of all you can ask any conductor for a ticket for any destination in Europe and get a price, what train or trains you need just like airline reservations!! The conductors carry a palm pilot like device that links with the transit database. Works real well. Reply Edit nobullchitbids Member sinceFebruary 2012 257 posts Posted by nobullchitbids on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 2:40 AM Here, Here, mate! Los Angeles once had a system similar to what you describe, the "Big Red Cars" of the Pacific Electric, and the last time I was there (some 30 years ago), some of the freeways still had the right-of-way in the middle clearly visible (the freeways actually followed the rail lines during the expansion after the World War). But, the Big Red Cars are long gone: Back around 1950, General Motors decided that, if the cars disappeared, more people would have to buy automobiles; so, GM subsidized a bus company to come in and drive PE out of business, then dropped its subsidization so that the bus company had to cut back its service as well. By then, most of the Big Reds had been torched. Some of the wiser supervisors objected at the time that the loss of PE and transformation to an all-auto society would bathe LA in air pollution, but GM officials glibly told the majority on the board that they had nothing to worry about! Needless to say, it was not long before LA was the smog capital of the world. GM, however, did have several stellar years. More recently, I believe several commuter operations in the Chicago and Cleveland areas were able to operate successfully because the rail lines did parallel the freeways, and management was able to advertise against all of those "suckers" sitting in the impassable lines of traffic during rush hour. So, yes, there are markets here for commuter and light rail, but the problem still remains: How to get to the ultimate destination? If there are not good bus connections at both ends, given the size of American cities, the railroads simply cannot offer the service the public needs. City governments looking to increase use of alternative modes of transportation do need to think in terms of such an integrated approach, and when they do, they have to think in terms of whether an all-bus line is better than a bus-rail combination. Reply Bulbous Member sinceJune 2004 9 posts Posted by Bulbous on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 1:47 AM The real wonder is that the cost to the government of the interstate system seems to be over looked, but the cost of a national rail system is too much to bear? I live in australia, and the problem here is the same, with people not caring about roads being built, but if you spend the same amount of money on passenger rail, then everyone complains that it is not well spent. They all fail to realise that the roads will probably not need expansion due to the thousands of people who will now travel by a competitive rail alternative...... the above is because in Perth, we are building rail lines down the centre of our freeways, with stations at all the major interchanges, and this is great advertising for the system when the trains fly past the people stuck in traffic jams...... :) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, April 25, 2005 10:12 PM North America is unique in its subsidies of airlines, air controllers, airports & screening personnel, minuscule landing fees; vs property taxes, a freight oriented mentality ( Pandora's Box in itself), the sacred cow of speed being essential, an administration that backs up air service no matter what while essentially ignoring rail service, freight schedules that DO delay passenger trains, only one Auto-train - - - and that is just scraping the surface. True costs and efficiencies need homework to be revealed. And how many are in favor of putting a lot of those Interstate-hogging semis on the railroad? No one likes to wait in line to be screened, sit in a seat made for midgets, go through boaring and deplaning like a herd of catle, to ride in a cigar-shaped dehumanizing vehicle. They do it because they are in a hurry. And they have to give a little on the speed end when the weather is uncooperative, when some bean-counter disallows connections between flights because of said weather delays and lets people go whistle until the next flight. Great way to live if you like association with sardines. Edna St. Vincent Millay is not the only one who enjoys trains, for many, many reasons. JD McFarland Reply Edit UPTRAIN Member sinceJune 2002 From: Independence, MO 1,570 posts Posted by UPTRAIN on Monday, April 25, 2005 9:35 PM Southwest Airlines is still cheaper between St. Louis and Chicago than Amtrak is from Poplar Bluff, MO to Chicago. Pump Reply nobullchitbids Member sinceFebruary 2012 257 posts Posted by nobullchitbids on Monday, April 25, 2005 8:42 PM The real issue re passenger rail service to some extent has nothing to do with fares or subsidies. Indeed, Connecticut recently did a study of its commuter and Amtrak services and concluded that, to the extent cost be the only issue, it would be cheaper to kill the subsidies (which would kill the trains) and buy all the riders cars or vans. Compared to highway use and highway options, the ridership is limited, and then there is the problem of setting up and paying for the final leg of the journey (which probably is nowhere near a train station). Amtrak is far more expensive than Metro, and to some extent the fares are silly, given one can take a subsidized bus for as little as a tenth of the cost of a train ticket (downside: trip does take longer). But, in the end, what many of the politicians will look at is whether we really want all of those additional cars and vans clogging the roads? If the environmentalists whine louder than the taxpayers, it is obvious what legislatures will do. Reply DSchmitt Member sinceSeptember 2003 From: California - moved to North Carolina 2018 4,422 posts Posted by DSchmitt on Monday, April 25, 2005 8:22 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by morseman No mention in this forum comparing Via Rail & Amtrak Several months ago I compared prices for a trip from Toronto to VCancouver on Via with a trip on the same dates from Philadelphia to Vancouver. Price was nearly double on Via even taking into account the exchange on the Cdn/US dollar. Booked Amtrak but had to cancel account our travelling companions became sick. Just got back from Amtrak trip Philly-Ft.Lauderdale. Train was packed both directions, Meals were much improved, Found price quite reasonable. Most passengers in sleepers were 30-50 Yrs old . My wife and I will continue to take one or two Amtrak tripa a year and quite often include it with a cruise. Interesting: the fare on Via compared to Amtrak. One of the excuses for Amtrak fares low is the low cost of gasoline in the USA. I believe the cost of gas in Canada is not much higher than in the US. I started this thread to get people thinking about Amtrak's fares, and whether they could be increased. Would increasing fares allow reduced subsidies and/or provide money needed to improve the system? Would, as some have suggested, there be such a large decrease in ridership that loses would be higher? Is it possible that while there would be an initial loss of riders, it would not be a permanent loss? I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it. I don't have a leg to stand on. Reply jimitimi Member sinceApril 2003 From: Andover, MN 33 posts Posted by jimitimi on Monday, April 25, 2005 8:03 PM I am only 40 and travel A/trak whenever possible when I need to go to Milwaukee or Chicago. The price is reasonable and I even get a "day" room as the meals are included and they are more comfortable. Until the Bush and Mineta Circus Act leaves town and gets realistic and gets off their "the states will pay" issue rail service will continue to drag along without any mandate. Let's look at the rail system as a SYSTEM and invest in it like the 1950's Defense Interstate Highway SYSTEM and we'd have high speed competetive trains running all over the country! The midwest HSR plan looks like a great way to go. I see the projections call for profitable incremental cost operation as long as the infrastructure is funded. Then charge a fare that covers the marginal costs and we'd be in business. As far as I last checked, the airline industry isn't exactly printing money, rather hemorraging red ink! Reply DSchmitt Member sinceSeptember 2003 From: California - moved to North Carolina 2018 4,422 posts Posted by DSchmitt on Monday, April 25, 2005 7:59 PM to thefox I chose San Francisco as the starting point because it is the major well known city closest to my home, therefore they are train trips I might take. The fares were for: California Zephyr to Salt Lake City Coast Starlight to Seattle Coast Starlight to Los Angeles None are Amtrak California trains. The Amtrak California trains are: Pacific Surfliner San Luis Opispo-San Diego, San Jauquins, Oakland-Stockton-Bakersfield, Sacramento-Stockton-Bakersfield Capitol Corridor, Auburn-Sacramento-Oakland-San Jose plus connecting buses in each case I was hoping that someone might be able to come up with subsidy information for European trains to compare with Amtrak. Another question is: How do the costs compare with peoples income in the Europe and in the US? I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it. I don't have a leg to stand on. Reply morseman Member sinceJuly 2004 From: Ontario - Canada 463 posts Posted by morseman on Monday, April 25, 2005 7:42 PM No mention in this forum comparing Via Rail & Amtrak Several months ago I compared prices for a trip from Toronto to VCancouver on Via with a trip on the same dates from Philadelphia to Vancouver. Price was nearly double on Via even taking into account the exchange on the Cdn/US dollar. Booked Amtrak but had to cancel account our travelling companions became sick. Just got back from Amtrak trip Philly-Ft.Lauderdale. Train was packed both directions, Meals were much improved, Found price quite reasonable. Most passengers in sleepers were 30-50 Yrs old . My wife and I will continue to take one or two Amtrak tripa a year and quite often include it with a cruise. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, April 25, 2005 7:18 PM geoffrey: don't judge Amtrak by the Sunset Limited... longest route=longest time to become late. And often times they [Amtrak] can't help it, it's the freight railroad's fault. To anyone else: Some people (e.g. U.S. pres, and his sec of transportation, Mineta) seem to think that the NE Corridor is profitable. On a day to day basis (this was before Acela got taken off the rails) yeah it is. However, over a period of time, say a year, maintenance costs still turn it into a negative profit. No railroad (or commuter rail, etc.) in the world (except maybe a luxury railroad that's not really about transportation) is actually profitable over a any real period of time. In fact the longer routes on Amtrak have shown that they make closer to breaking even (still a long shot) than the NE corridor. Why do you think the railroads wanted to unload passenger service in the first place? Privatization is definitely not the way to go. Why choose Amtrak at all? One big reason for me, I have been cross-continent MANY times by train and plane (and I'm not that old either) and I saw a heck of lot more of the continent and learned more by train than by plane. Finally, I don't remember who started the thread, but..... You can't use Amtrak California fares to compare Amtrak to anything except Amtrak California itself. They are different genres entirely in terms of fares and service, etc. In my opinion the premise of this thread was fairly ridiculous to start with. The fares are already high enough to turn many potential riders away. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, April 25, 2005 6:48 PM Gas in Europe at double the price of the USA ?- I wish-- The price of Unleaded Gas in Britain is nearly $10.00 PER GALLON. Road tax on my car is $350.00 per year. I was in Las Vegas in Febuary and paid around $1.92 a gallon. Tax on Gas is Around 70% here. Some rail journeys ie Manchester to London return cost around $300 return with Virgin for a total return mileage of around 390 miles. Having said all of that we had tickets from New Orleans for the return leg of 'The Sunset Ltd' to Orlando in February last year for a train that was 27 Hours late and turned into a bus. We won't be travelling with Amtrak again. Reply Edit darth9x9 Member sinceDecember 2002 From: US 665 posts Posted by darth9x9 on Monday, April 25, 2005 6:06 PM Comparing the fares of Amtrak to those in Europe is like comparing apples to oranges. More American's own cars per capita than Europeans. Also America's infrastructure favors the car where as Europe's favors rail. Americans have always loved their cars and the nation has dramatically catered to the automobile since WWII. On the other hand after WWII, Europe had little to no infrastructure with all of the destruction from the war. Europe decided to build a rail network - it was easy (easier) back then. I have spent several years in Europe and I love to travel by rail in Europe. They have trains that go most everywhere you need to and if not, a short cab ride will get you to your destination. The other thing is that the trains run frequently in Europe. And don't be one minute late for catching your train or you WILL be chasing it down the platform! Bill Carl (modeling Chessie and predecessors from 1973-1983) Member of Four County Society of Model Engineers NCE DCC Master Visit the FCSME at www.FCSME.org Modular railroading at its best! If it has an X in it, it sucks! And yes, I just had my modeler's license renewed last week! Reply dldance Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Near Promentory UT 1,590 posts Posted by dldance on Monday, April 25, 2005 4:09 PM Originally posted by spbed My theroy is as the elderly go to another place A/trak patronage will decrease as well as todays "baby" boomers or the next elderly come from the jet age not like todays elderly who came before the jet age & for the mosy part were afraid to fly. [:o)][8D] Interesting theory - but us "baby boomers" are just approaching our "Amtrak" years. The demographic of early/near retired people is the fastest growing demographic in North American and will be for the next 10 years. These are the ones with the money and the time to ride Amtrak. dd Reply Simon Reed Member sinceMarch 2005 From: Sulzerland, UK 337 posts Posted by Simon Reed on Monday, April 25, 2005 2:08 PM As a British lover of American passenger rail, I'd say unequivocally yes, Amtrak fares are lower than European fares over a comparable distance, but commuter rail fares are also lower by the same comparison. I'm not sure what that indicates other than possibly a difference in perceptions of the price the passenger is prepared to pay. I would, however, absolutely disagree with any suggestion that people in the US travel by rail because they either can't afford to fly or are of a generation which regards flying with concern or alarm. I've done the best part of 20,000 miles on Amtrak and would say that the vast majority of passengers on long distance services are travelling by rail because they WANT to. The American people I've met on, say, the Sunset or Empire Builder have been people with sufficient means to fly, but enough spare time to travel by rail and watch their country going by the window. Maybe many of the people who fall into that category are retired, thereby creating the impression that Amtrak is a resort of the elderly, but retirement and the free time and financial independence to take the train will hopefully come to us all. It's an infinately renewable market. I wonder to what degree Amtrak's farebox woes would be lessened by jacking up long distance fares to a "European" level whilst aggressively marketing the train as a leisure commodity to those rich in both cash and time - i.e. the domestic senior market and the independently minded European/Australasian traveller. A national passenger rail infrastructure - even one as moribund and fragmented as yours - is a national asset. I sincerely hope to be riding Amtrak for many years yet, and for your sake as well as mine. Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Monday, April 25, 2005 1:18 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Thanks so todays tix price is beyond the cost of a tix in 76 using todays money[:o)][:D] Originally posted by oltmannd Three times over! -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, April 25, 2005 12:35 PM My theroy is as the elderly go to another place A/trak patronage will decrease as well as todays "baby" boomers or the next elderly come from the jet age not like todays elderly who came before the jet age & for the mosy part were afraid to fly. [:o)][8D] Originally posted by Muddy Creek Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, April 25, 2005 12:30 PM Thanks so todays tix price is beyond the cost of a tix in 76 using todays money[:o)][:D] Originally posted by oltmannd Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply dldance Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Near Promentory UT 1,590 posts Posted by dldance on Monday, April 25, 2005 12:00 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by Muddy Creek QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Sure you may have seen a few "young" persons but in general those "young" people who use the train are a on vast minority to more elderly riders. Though my experience tells me otherwise, assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, may I respectfully ask, "So what?" Wayne I agree. So what? My own anecdotal experience with LD trains has been young people in the coaches, old people in the sleepers. A year ago, on a trip in a coach on the Crescent, I was just about the oldest guy in the coach at 48! My experience on the Cardinal and the Texas Eagle last month was about the same - young in coach and older in sleepers -- and both trains were full. The Cardinal had been overbooked in coach from Indianapolis to Chicago. dd Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Monday, April 25, 2005 11:12 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by Muddy Creek QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Sure you may have seen a few "young" persons but in general those "young" people who use the train are a on vast minority to more elderly riders. Though my experience tells me otherwise, assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, may I respectfully ask, "So what?" Wayne I agree. So what? My own anecdotal experience with LD trains has been young people in the coaches, old people in the sleepers. A year ago, on a trip in a coach on the Crescent, I was just about the oldest guy in the coach at 48! -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Monday, April 25, 2005 11:10 AM No math whiz needed. Just use gov't CPI calculator http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm $5.25 in 1976 = $17.84 in 2005 I think Amtrak has (or at least had, in recent history) a cost control issue. -Don -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, April 25, 2005 10:33 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Sure you may have seen a few "young" persons but in general those "young" people who use the train are a on vast minority to more elderly riders. Though my experience tells me otherwise, assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, may I respectfully ask, "So what?" Wayne Reply Edit 123 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Originally posted by spbed
Originally posted by dldance Originally posted by spbed Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 7:09 AM Is that from Chic to Milw on that day room? [:o)][:)] Take me for a instant. I live in the lower SE & say to get to Chic by train would be a day or more. Airplane 4 1/2 hours including 1 hour drive time to & from the airport. Yes airlines such as Delta & United & US Air are in deep doo-doo from past giveaways when times were good. But el cheapo airlines such as SW, Jet Blue, Spirit are doing quite well. As a example I am going shortly from FLL to Omaha Mapquest says that is 3,200 miles round trip & I am paying only $120.00 for the R/T ticket or less then $0.04 per mile. Mapquest further says by car it is 25 hours vs air about 7 with the L/O in Chicago. As I have said the few that will give up hours for a train are in my opinion quite few & far between. [:o)][:D][:p] Hopefully you are aware that the main reason the interstate system was even built was so we can easily move very heavy military equipment from point A to point B most quickly. If you check out the law that enabled the I system you will find that EVERY underpass has to be I think 15'8" below the overpass so that large equipment like tanks & APV & things like that can pass underneath safely. [:o)][:D][:p] No matter in my opinion outside of the NEC train travel in the USA is for the few not the many sorry to say. [:p][:D] Originally posted by jimitimi Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 6:42 AM If you could ride a fast train to Chicago from Popular Bluff, MO in less than 3 hours, why would anyone fly? The coach seats are larger than first class seats on an airliner, oops, Southwest doesn't have first class, and there is a diner and lounge car to relax in......with a much better view of the countryside..... With a HSR train service able to run a Dallas to Chicago route in 6-7 hours, and be able to offer three times the frequency of our now daily service, you wouldn't have to wake up before dawn to catch the train or arrive home near midnight.... Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 5:16 AM first of all. not all trains in europe are high speed. the dutch run there stuff at about 90 mph. they use flyovers to avoid slowing trains leaving the stations at the same time going to different destinations. They also run like clockwork and can because the distances between stops is MUCH smaller than in the states. Yes gas is much higher but the trains are running on a timely schedule and arealmost always on time. It's very easy to figure out when you need to leave and what train goes where. This also leads to easy connections with other trains. But best of all you can ask any conductor for a ticket for any destination in Europe and get a price, what train or trains you need just like airline reservations!! The conductors carry a palm pilot like device that links with the transit database. Works real well. Reply Edit nobullchitbids Member sinceFebruary 2012 257 posts Posted by nobullchitbids on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 2:40 AM Here, Here, mate! Los Angeles once had a system similar to what you describe, the "Big Red Cars" of the Pacific Electric, and the last time I was there (some 30 years ago), some of the freeways still had the right-of-way in the middle clearly visible (the freeways actually followed the rail lines during the expansion after the World War). But, the Big Red Cars are long gone: Back around 1950, General Motors decided that, if the cars disappeared, more people would have to buy automobiles; so, GM subsidized a bus company to come in and drive PE out of business, then dropped its subsidization so that the bus company had to cut back its service as well. By then, most of the Big Reds had been torched. Some of the wiser supervisors objected at the time that the loss of PE and transformation to an all-auto society would bathe LA in air pollution, but GM officials glibly told the majority on the board that they had nothing to worry about! Needless to say, it was not long before LA was the smog capital of the world. GM, however, did have several stellar years. More recently, I believe several commuter operations in the Chicago and Cleveland areas were able to operate successfully because the rail lines did parallel the freeways, and management was able to advertise against all of those "suckers" sitting in the impassable lines of traffic during rush hour. So, yes, there are markets here for commuter and light rail, but the problem still remains: How to get to the ultimate destination? If there are not good bus connections at both ends, given the size of American cities, the railroads simply cannot offer the service the public needs. City governments looking to increase use of alternative modes of transportation do need to think in terms of such an integrated approach, and when they do, they have to think in terms of whether an all-bus line is better than a bus-rail combination. Reply Bulbous Member sinceJune 2004 9 posts Posted by Bulbous on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 1:47 AM The real wonder is that the cost to the government of the interstate system seems to be over looked, but the cost of a national rail system is too much to bear? I live in australia, and the problem here is the same, with people not caring about roads being built, but if you spend the same amount of money on passenger rail, then everyone complains that it is not well spent. They all fail to realise that the roads will probably not need expansion due to the thousands of people who will now travel by a competitive rail alternative...... the above is because in Perth, we are building rail lines down the centre of our freeways, with stations at all the major interchanges, and this is great advertising for the system when the trains fly past the people stuck in traffic jams...... :) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, April 25, 2005 10:12 PM North America is unique in its subsidies of airlines, air controllers, airports & screening personnel, minuscule landing fees; vs property taxes, a freight oriented mentality ( Pandora's Box in itself), the sacred cow of speed being essential, an administration that backs up air service no matter what while essentially ignoring rail service, freight schedules that DO delay passenger trains, only one Auto-train - - - and that is just scraping the surface. True costs and efficiencies need homework to be revealed. And how many are in favor of putting a lot of those Interstate-hogging semis on the railroad? No one likes to wait in line to be screened, sit in a seat made for midgets, go through boaring and deplaning like a herd of catle, to ride in a cigar-shaped dehumanizing vehicle. They do it because they are in a hurry. And they have to give a little on the speed end when the weather is uncooperative, when some bean-counter disallows connections between flights because of said weather delays and lets people go whistle until the next flight. Great way to live if you like association with sardines. Edna St. Vincent Millay is not the only one who enjoys trains, for many, many reasons. JD McFarland Reply Edit UPTRAIN Member sinceJune 2002 From: Independence, MO 1,570 posts Posted by UPTRAIN on Monday, April 25, 2005 9:35 PM Southwest Airlines is still cheaper between St. Louis and Chicago than Amtrak is from Poplar Bluff, MO to Chicago. Pump Reply nobullchitbids Member sinceFebruary 2012 257 posts Posted by nobullchitbids on Monday, April 25, 2005 8:42 PM The real issue re passenger rail service to some extent has nothing to do with fares or subsidies. Indeed, Connecticut recently did a study of its commuter and Amtrak services and concluded that, to the extent cost be the only issue, it would be cheaper to kill the subsidies (which would kill the trains) and buy all the riders cars or vans. Compared to highway use and highway options, the ridership is limited, and then there is the problem of setting up and paying for the final leg of the journey (which probably is nowhere near a train station). Amtrak is far more expensive than Metro, and to some extent the fares are silly, given one can take a subsidized bus for as little as a tenth of the cost of a train ticket (downside: trip does take longer). But, in the end, what many of the politicians will look at is whether we really want all of those additional cars and vans clogging the roads? If the environmentalists whine louder than the taxpayers, it is obvious what legislatures will do. Reply DSchmitt Member sinceSeptember 2003 From: California - moved to North Carolina 2018 4,422 posts Posted by DSchmitt on Monday, April 25, 2005 8:22 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by morseman No mention in this forum comparing Via Rail & Amtrak Several months ago I compared prices for a trip from Toronto to VCancouver on Via with a trip on the same dates from Philadelphia to Vancouver. Price was nearly double on Via even taking into account the exchange on the Cdn/US dollar. Booked Amtrak but had to cancel account our travelling companions became sick. Just got back from Amtrak trip Philly-Ft.Lauderdale. Train was packed both directions, Meals were much improved, Found price quite reasonable. Most passengers in sleepers were 30-50 Yrs old . My wife and I will continue to take one or two Amtrak tripa a year and quite often include it with a cruise. Interesting: the fare on Via compared to Amtrak. One of the excuses for Amtrak fares low is the low cost of gasoline in the USA. I believe the cost of gas in Canada is not much higher than in the US. I started this thread to get people thinking about Amtrak's fares, and whether they could be increased. Would increasing fares allow reduced subsidies and/or provide money needed to improve the system? Would, as some have suggested, there be such a large decrease in ridership that loses would be higher? Is it possible that while there would be an initial loss of riders, it would not be a permanent loss? I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it. I don't have a leg to stand on. Reply jimitimi Member sinceApril 2003 From: Andover, MN 33 posts Posted by jimitimi on Monday, April 25, 2005 8:03 PM I am only 40 and travel A/trak whenever possible when I need to go to Milwaukee or Chicago. The price is reasonable and I even get a "day" room as the meals are included and they are more comfortable. Until the Bush and Mineta Circus Act leaves town and gets realistic and gets off their "the states will pay" issue rail service will continue to drag along without any mandate. Let's look at the rail system as a SYSTEM and invest in it like the 1950's Defense Interstate Highway SYSTEM and we'd have high speed competetive trains running all over the country! The midwest HSR plan looks like a great way to go. I see the projections call for profitable incremental cost operation as long as the infrastructure is funded. Then charge a fare that covers the marginal costs and we'd be in business. As far as I last checked, the airline industry isn't exactly printing money, rather hemorraging red ink! Reply DSchmitt Member sinceSeptember 2003 From: California - moved to North Carolina 2018 4,422 posts Posted by DSchmitt on Monday, April 25, 2005 7:59 PM to thefox I chose San Francisco as the starting point because it is the major well known city closest to my home, therefore they are train trips I might take. The fares were for: California Zephyr to Salt Lake City Coast Starlight to Seattle Coast Starlight to Los Angeles None are Amtrak California trains. The Amtrak California trains are: Pacific Surfliner San Luis Opispo-San Diego, San Jauquins, Oakland-Stockton-Bakersfield, Sacramento-Stockton-Bakersfield Capitol Corridor, Auburn-Sacramento-Oakland-San Jose plus connecting buses in each case I was hoping that someone might be able to come up with subsidy information for European trains to compare with Amtrak. Another question is: How do the costs compare with peoples income in the Europe and in the US? I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it. I don't have a leg to stand on. Reply morseman Member sinceJuly 2004 From: Ontario - Canada 463 posts Posted by morseman on Monday, April 25, 2005 7:42 PM No mention in this forum comparing Via Rail & Amtrak Several months ago I compared prices for a trip from Toronto to VCancouver on Via with a trip on the same dates from Philadelphia to Vancouver. Price was nearly double on Via even taking into account the exchange on the Cdn/US dollar. Booked Amtrak but had to cancel account our travelling companions became sick. Just got back from Amtrak trip Philly-Ft.Lauderdale. Train was packed both directions, Meals were much improved, Found price quite reasonable. Most passengers in sleepers were 30-50 Yrs old . My wife and I will continue to take one or two Amtrak tripa a year and quite often include it with a cruise. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, April 25, 2005 7:18 PM geoffrey: don't judge Amtrak by the Sunset Limited... longest route=longest time to become late. And often times they [Amtrak] can't help it, it's the freight railroad's fault. To anyone else: Some people (e.g. U.S. pres, and his sec of transportation, Mineta) seem to think that the NE Corridor is profitable. On a day to day basis (this was before Acela got taken off the rails) yeah it is. However, over a period of time, say a year, maintenance costs still turn it into a negative profit. No railroad (or commuter rail, etc.) in the world (except maybe a luxury railroad that's not really about transportation) is actually profitable over a any real period of time. In fact the longer routes on Amtrak have shown that they make closer to breaking even (still a long shot) than the NE corridor. Why do you think the railroads wanted to unload passenger service in the first place? Privatization is definitely not the way to go. Why choose Amtrak at all? One big reason for me, I have been cross-continent MANY times by train and plane (and I'm not that old either) and I saw a heck of lot more of the continent and learned more by train than by plane. Finally, I don't remember who started the thread, but..... You can't use Amtrak California fares to compare Amtrak to anything except Amtrak California itself. They are different genres entirely in terms of fares and service, etc. In my opinion the premise of this thread was fairly ridiculous to start with. The fares are already high enough to turn many potential riders away. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, April 25, 2005 6:48 PM Gas in Europe at double the price of the USA ?- I wish-- The price of Unleaded Gas in Britain is nearly $10.00 PER GALLON. Road tax on my car is $350.00 per year. I was in Las Vegas in Febuary and paid around $1.92 a gallon. Tax on Gas is Around 70% here. Some rail journeys ie Manchester to London return cost around $300 return with Virgin for a total return mileage of around 390 miles. Having said all of that we had tickets from New Orleans for the return leg of 'The Sunset Ltd' to Orlando in February last year for a train that was 27 Hours late and turned into a bus. We won't be travelling with Amtrak again. Reply Edit darth9x9 Member sinceDecember 2002 From: US 665 posts Posted by darth9x9 on Monday, April 25, 2005 6:06 PM Comparing the fares of Amtrak to those in Europe is like comparing apples to oranges. More American's own cars per capita than Europeans. Also America's infrastructure favors the car where as Europe's favors rail. Americans have always loved their cars and the nation has dramatically catered to the automobile since WWII. On the other hand after WWII, Europe had little to no infrastructure with all of the destruction from the war. Europe decided to build a rail network - it was easy (easier) back then. I have spent several years in Europe and I love to travel by rail in Europe. They have trains that go most everywhere you need to and if not, a short cab ride will get you to your destination. The other thing is that the trains run frequently in Europe. And don't be one minute late for catching your train or you WILL be chasing it down the platform! Bill Carl (modeling Chessie and predecessors from 1973-1983) Member of Four County Society of Model Engineers NCE DCC Master Visit the FCSME at www.FCSME.org Modular railroading at its best! If it has an X in it, it sucks! And yes, I just had my modeler's license renewed last week! Reply dldance Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Near Promentory UT 1,590 posts Posted by dldance on Monday, April 25, 2005 4:09 PM Originally posted by spbed My theroy is as the elderly go to another place A/trak patronage will decrease as well as todays "baby" boomers or the next elderly come from the jet age not like todays elderly who came before the jet age & for the mosy part were afraid to fly. [:o)][8D] Interesting theory - but us "baby boomers" are just approaching our "Amtrak" years. The demographic of early/near retired people is the fastest growing demographic in North American and will be for the next 10 years. These are the ones with the money and the time to ride Amtrak. dd Reply Simon Reed Member sinceMarch 2005 From: Sulzerland, UK 337 posts Posted by Simon Reed on Monday, April 25, 2005 2:08 PM As a British lover of American passenger rail, I'd say unequivocally yes, Amtrak fares are lower than European fares over a comparable distance, but commuter rail fares are also lower by the same comparison. I'm not sure what that indicates other than possibly a difference in perceptions of the price the passenger is prepared to pay. I would, however, absolutely disagree with any suggestion that people in the US travel by rail because they either can't afford to fly or are of a generation which regards flying with concern or alarm. I've done the best part of 20,000 miles on Amtrak and would say that the vast majority of passengers on long distance services are travelling by rail because they WANT to. The American people I've met on, say, the Sunset or Empire Builder have been people with sufficient means to fly, but enough spare time to travel by rail and watch their country going by the window. Maybe many of the people who fall into that category are retired, thereby creating the impression that Amtrak is a resort of the elderly, but retirement and the free time and financial independence to take the train will hopefully come to us all. It's an infinately renewable market. I wonder to what degree Amtrak's farebox woes would be lessened by jacking up long distance fares to a "European" level whilst aggressively marketing the train as a leisure commodity to those rich in both cash and time - i.e. the domestic senior market and the independently minded European/Australasian traveller. A national passenger rail infrastructure - even one as moribund and fragmented as yours - is a national asset. I sincerely hope to be riding Amtrak for many years yet, and for your sake as well as mine. Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Monday, April 25, 2005 1:18 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Thanks so todays tix price is beyond the cost of a tix in 76 using todays money[:o)][:D] Originally posted by oltmannd Three times over! -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, April 25, 2005 12:35 PM My theroy is as the elderly go to another place A/trak patronage will decrease as well as todays "baby" boomers or the next elderly come from the jet age not like todays elderly who came before the jet age & for the mosy part were afraid to fly. [:o)][8D] Originally posted by Muddy Creek Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, April 25, 2005 12:30 PM Thanks so todays tix price is beyond the cost of a tix in 76 using todays money[:o)][:D] Originally posted by oltmannd Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply dldance Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Near Promentory UT 1,590 posts Posted by dldance on Monday, April 25, 2005 12:00 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by Muddy Creek QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Sure you may have seen a few "young" persons but in general those "young" people who use the train are a on vast minority to more elderly riders. Though my experience tells me otherwise, assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, may I respectfully ask, "So what?" Wayne I agree. So what? My own anecdotal experience with LD trains has been young people in the coaches, old people in the sleepers. A year ago, on a trip in a coach on the Crescent, I was just about the oldest guy in the coach at 48! My experience on the Cardinal and the Texas Eagle last month was about the same - young in coach and older in sleepers -- and both trains were full. The Cardinal had been overbooked in coach from Indianapolis to Chicago. dd Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Monday, April 25, 2005 11:12 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by Muddy Creek QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Sure you may have seen a few "young" persons but in general those "young" people who use the train are a on vast minority to more elderly riders. Though my experience tells me otherwise, assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, may I respectfully ask, "So what?" Wayne I agree. So what? My own anecdotal experience with LD trains has been young people in the coaches, old people in the sleepers. A year ago, on a trip in a coach on the Crescent, I was just about the oldest guy in the coach at 48! -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Monday, April 25, 2005 11:10 AM No math whiz needed. Just use gov't CPI calculator http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm $5.25 in 1976 = $17.84 in 2005 I think Amtrak has (or at least had, in recent history) a cost control issue. -Don -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, April 25, 2005 10:33 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Sure you may have seen a few "young" persons but in general those "young" people who use the train are a on vast minority to more elderly riders. Though my experience tells me otherwise, assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, may I respectfully ask, "So what?" Wayne Reply Edit 123 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Originally posted by spbed Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 7:09 AM Is that from Chic to Milw on that day room? [:o)][:)] Take me for a instant. I live in the lower SE & say to get to Chic by train would be a day or more. Airplane 4 1/2 hours including 1 hour drive time to & from the airport. Yes airlines such as Delta & United & US Air are in deep doo-doo from past giveaways when times were good. But el cheapo airlines such as SW, Jet Blue, Spirit are doing quite well. As a example I am going shortly from FLL to Omaha Mapquest says that is 3,200 miles round trip & I am paying only $120.00 for the R/T ticket or less then $0.04 per mile. Mapquest further says by car it is 25 hours vs air about 7 with the L/O in Chicago. As I have said the few that will give up hours for a train are in my opinion quite few & far between. [:o)][:D][:p] Hopefully you are aware that the main reason the interstate system was even built was so we can easily move very heavy military equipment from point A to point B most quickly. If you check out the law that enabled the I system you will find that EVERY underpass has to be I think 15'8" below the overpass so that large equipment like tanks & APV & things like that can pass underneath safely. [:o)][:D][:p] No matter in my opinion outside of the NEC train travel in the USA is for the few not the many sorry to say. [:p][:D] Originally posted by jimitimi Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 6:42 AM If you could ride a fast train to Chicago from Popular Bluff, MO in less than 3 hours, why would anyone fly? The coach seats are larger than first class seats on an airliner, oops, Southwest doesn't have first class, and there is a diner and lounge car to relax in......with a much better view of the countryside..... With a HSR train service able to run a Dallas to Chicago route in 6-7 hours, and be able to offer three times the frequency of our now daily service, you wouldn't have to wake up before dawn to catch the train or arrive home near midnight.... Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 5:16 AM first of all. not all trains in europe are high speed. the dutch run there stuff at about 90 mph. they use flyovers to avoid slowing trains leaving the stations at the same time going to different destinations. They also run like clockwork and can because the distances between stops is MUCH smaller than in the states. Yes gas is much higher but the trains are running on a timely schedule and arealmost always on time. It's very easy to figure out when you need to leave and what train goes where. This also leads to easy connections with other trains. But best of all you can ask any conductor for a ticket for any destination in Europe and get a price, what train or trains you need just like airline reservations!! The conductors carry a palm pilot like device that links with the transit database. Works real well. Reply Edit nobullchitbids Member sinceFebruary 2012 257 posts Posted by nobullchitbids on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 2:40 AM Here, Here, mate! Los Angeles once had a system similar to what you describe, the "Big Red Cars" of the Pacific Electric, and the last time I was there (some 30 years ago), some of the freeways still had the right-of-way in the middle clearly visible (the freeways actually followed the rail lines during the expansion after the World War). But, the Big Red Cars are long gone: Back around 1950, General Motors decided that, if the cars disappeared, more people would have to buy automobiles; so, GM subsidized a bus company to come in and drive PE out of business, then dropped its subsidization so that the bus company had to cut back its service as well. By then, most of the Big Reds had been torched. Some of the wiser supervisors objected at the time that the loss of PE and transformation to an all-auto society would bathe LA in air pollution, but GM officials glibly told the majority on the board that they had nothing to worry about! Needless to say, it was not long before LA was the smog capital of the world. GM, however, did have several stellar years. More recently, I believe several commuter operations in the Chicago and Cleveland areas were able to operate successfully because the rail lines did parallel the freeways, and management was able to advertise against all of those "suckers" sitting in the impassable lines of traffic during rush hour. So, yes, there are markets here for commuter and light rail, but the problem still remains: How to get to the ultimate destination? If there are not good bus connections at both ends, given the size of American cities, the railroads simply cannot offer the service the public needs. City governments looking to increase use of alternative modes of transportation do need to think in terms of such an integrated approach, and when they do, they have to think in terms of whether an all-bus line is better than a bus-rail combination. Reply Bulbous Member sinceJune 2004 9 posts Posted by Bulbous on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 1:47 AM The real wonder is that the cost to the government of the interstate system seems to be over looked, but the cost of a national rail system is too much to bear? I live in australia, and the problem here is the same, with people not caring about roads being built, but if you spend the same amount of money on passenger rail, then everyone complains that it is not well spent. They all fail to realise that the roads will probably not need expansion due to the thousands of people who will now travel by a competitive rail alternative...... the above is because in Perth, we are building rail lines down the centre of our freeways, with stations at all the major interchanges, and this is great advertising for the system when the trains fly past the people stuck in traffic jams...... :) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, April 25, 2005 10:12 PM North America is unique in its subsidies of airlines, air controllers, airports & screening personnel, minuscule landing fees; vs property taxes, a freight oriented mentality ( Pandora's Box in itself), the sacred cow of speed being essential, an administration that backs up air service no matter what while essentially ignoring rail service, freight schedules that DO delay passenger trains, only one Auto-train - - - and that is just scraping the surface. True costs and efficiencies need homework to be revealed. And how many are in favor of putting a lot of those Interstate-hogging semis on the railroad? No one likes to wait in line to be screened, sit in a seat made for midgets, go through boaring and deplaning like a herd of catle, to ride in a cigar-shaped dehumanizing vehicle. They do it because they are in a hurry. And they have to give a little on the speed end when the weather is uncooperative, when some bean-counter disallows connections between flights because of said weather delays and lets people go whistle until the next flight. Great way to live if you like association with sardines. Edna St. Vincent Millay is not the only one who enjoys trains, for many, many reasons. JD McFarland Reply Edit UPTRAIN Member sinceJune 2002 From: Independence, MO 1,570 posts Posted by UPTRAIN on Monday, April 25, 2005 9:35 PM Southwest Airlines is still cheaper between St. Louis and Chicago than Amtrak is from Poplar Bluff, MO to Chicago. Pump Reply nobullchitbids Member sinceFebruary 2012 257 posts Posted by nobullchitbids on Monday, April 25, 2005 8:42 PM The real issue re passenger rail service to some extent has nothing to do with fares or subsidies. Indeed, Connecticut recently did a study of its commuter and Amtrak services and concluded that, to the extent cost be the only issue, it would be cheaper to kill the subsidies (which would kill the trains) and buy all the riders cars or vans. Compared to highway use and highway options, the ridership is limited, and then there is the problem of setting up and paying for the final leg of the journey (which probably is nowhere near a train station). Amtrak is far more expensive than Metro, and to some extent the fares are silly, given one can take a subsidized bus for as little as a tenth of the cost of a train ticket (downside: trip does take longer). But, in the end, what many of the politicians will look at is whether we really want all of those additional cars and vans clogging the roads? If the environmentalists whine louder than the taxpayers, it is obvious what legislatures will do. Reply DSchmitt Member sinceSeptember 2003 From: California - moved to North Carolina 2018 4,422 posts Posted by DSchmitt on Monday, April 25, 2005 8:22 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by morseman No mention in this forum comparing Via Rail & Amtrak Several months ago I compared prices for a trip from Toronto to VCancouver on Via with a trip on the same dates from Philadelphia to Vancouver. Price was nearly double on Via even taking into account the exchange on the Cdn/US dollar. Booked Amtrak but had to cancel account our travelling companions became sick. Just got back from Amtrak trip Philly-Ft.Lauderdale. Train was packed both directions, Meals were much improved, Found price quite reasonable. Most passengers in sleepers were 30-50 Yrs old . My wife and I will continue to take one or two Amtrak tripa a year and quite often include it with a cruise. Interesting: the fare on Via compared to Amtrak. One of the excuses for Amtrak fares low is the low cost of gasoline in the USA. I believe the cost of gas in Canada is not much higher than in the US. I started this thread to get people thinking about Amtrak's fares, and whether they could be increased. Would increasing fares allow reduced subsidies and/or provide money needed to improve the system? Would, as some have suggested, there be such a large decrease in ridership that loses would be higher? Is it possible that while there would be an initial loss of riders, it would not be a permanent loss? I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it. I don't have a leg to stand on. Reply jimitimi Member sinceApril 2003 From: Andover, MN 33 posts Posted by jimitimi on Monday, April 25, 2005 8:03 PM I am only 40 and travel A/trak whenever possible when I need to go to Milwaukee or Chicago. The price is reasonable and I even get a "day" room as the meals are included and they are more comfortable. Until the Bush and Mineta Circus Act leaves town and gets realistic and gets off their "the states will pay" issue rail service will continue to drag along without any mandate. Let's look at the rail system as a SYSTEM and invest in it like the 1950's Defense Interstate Highway SYSTEM and we'd have high speed competetive trains running all over the country! The midwest HSR plan looks like a great way to go. I see the projections call for profitable incremental cost operation as long as the infrastructure is funded. Then charge a fare that covers the marginal costs and we'd be in business. As far as I last checked, the airline industry isn't exactly printing money, rather hemorraging red ink! Reply DSchmitt Member sinceSeptember 2003 From: California - moved to North Carolina 2018 4,422 posts Posted by DSchmitt on Monday, April 25, 2005 7:59 PM to thefox I chose San Francisco as the starting point because it is the major well known city closest to my home, therefore they are train trips I might take. The fares were for: California Zephyr to Salt Lake City Coast Starlight to Seattle Coast Starlight to Los Angeles None are Amtrak California trains. The Amtrak California trains are: Pacific Surfliner San Luis Opispo-San Diego, San Jauquins, Oakland-Stockton-Bakersfield, Sacramento-Stockton-Bakersfield Capitol Corridor, Auburn-Sacramento-Oakland-San Jose plus connecting buses in each case I was hoping that someone might be able to come up with subsidy information for European trains to compare with Amtrak. Another question is: How do the costs compare with peoples income in the Europe and in the US? I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it. I don't have a leg to stand on. Reply morseman Member sinceJuly 2004 From: Ontario - Canada 463 posts Posted by morseman on Monday, April 25, 2005 7:42 PM No mention in this forum comparing Via Rail & Amtrak Several months ago I compared prices for a trip from Toronto to VCancouver on Via with a trip on the same dates from Philadelphia to Vancouver. Price was nearly double on Via even taking into account the exchange on the Cdn/US dollar. Booked Amtrak but had to cancel account our travelling companions became sick. Just got back from Amtrak trip Philly-Ft.Lauderdale. Train was packed both directions, Meals were much improved, Found price quite reasonable. Most passengers in sleepers were 30-50 Yrs old . My wife and I will continue to take one or two Amtrak tripa a year and quite often include it with a cruise. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, April 25, 2005 7:18 PM geoffrey: don't judge Amtrak by the Sunset Limited... longest route=longest time to become late. And often times they [Amtrak] can't help it, it's the freight railroad's fault. To anyone else: Some people (e.g. U.S. pres, and his sec of transportation, Mineta) seem to think that the NE Corridor is profitable. On a day to day basis (this was before Acela got taken off the rails) yeah it is. However, over a period of time, say a year, maintenance costs still turn it into a negative profit. No railroad (or commuter rail, etc.) in the world (except maybe a luxury railroad that's not really about transportation) is actually profitable over a any real period of time. In fact the longer routes on Amtrak have shown that they make closer to breaking even (still a long shot) than the NE corridor. Why do you think the railroads wanted to unload passenger service in the first place? Privatization is definitely not the way to go. Why choose Amtrak at all? One big reason for me, I have been cross-continent MANY times by train and plane (and I'm not that old either) and I saw a heck of lot more of the continent and learned more by train than by plane. Finally, I don't remember who started the thread, but..... You can't use Amtrak California fares to compare Amtrak to anything except Amtrak California itself. They are different genres entirely in terms of fares and service, etc. In my opinion the premise of this thread was fairly ridiculous to start with. The fares are already high enough to turn many potential riders away. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, April 25, 2005 6:48 PM Gas in Europe at double the price of the USA ?- I wish-- The price of Unleaded Gas in Britain is nearly $10.00 PER GALLON. Road tax on my car is $350.00 per year. I was in Las Vegas in Febuary and paid around $1.92 a gallon. Tax on Gas is Around 70% here. Some rail journeys ie Manchester to London return cost around $300 return with Virgin for a total return mileage of around 390 miles. Having said all of that we had tickets from New Orleans for the return leg of 'The Sunset Ltd' to Orlando in February last year for a train that was 27 Hours late and turned into a bus. We won't be travelling with Amtrak again. Reply Edit darth9x9 Member sinceDecember 2002 From: US 665 posts Posted by darth9x9 on Monday, April 25, 2005 6:06 PM Comparing the fares of Amtrak to those in Europe is like comparing apples to oranges. More American's own cars per capita than Europeans. Also America's infrastructure favors the car where as Europe's favors rail. Americans have always loved their cars and the nation has dramatically catered to the automobile since WWII. On the other hand after WWII, Europe had little to no infrastructure with all of the destruction from the war. Europe decided to build a rail network - it was easy (easier) back then. I have spent several years in Europe and I love to travel by rail in Europe. They have trains that go most everywhere you need to and if not, a short cab ride will get you to your destination. The other thing is that the trains run frequently in Europe. And don't be one minute late for catching your train or you WILL be chasing it down the platform! Bill Carl (modeling Chessie and predecessors from 1973-1983) Member of Four County Society of Model Engineers NCE DCC Master Visit the FCSME at www.FCSME.org Modular railroading at its best! If it has an X in it, it sucks! And yes, I just had my modeler's license renewed last week! Reply dldance Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Near Promentory UT 1,590 posts Posted by dldance on Monday, April 25, 2005 4:09 PM Originally posted by spbed My theroy is as the elderly go to another place A/trak patronage will decrease as well as todays "baby" boomers or the next elderly come from the jet age not like todays elderly who came before the jet age & for the mosy part were afraid to fly. [:o)][8D] Interesting theory - but us "baby boomers" are just approaching our "Amtrak" years. The demographic of early/near retired people is the fastest growing demographic in North American and will be for the next 10 years. These are the ones with the money and the time to ride Amtrak. dd Reply Simon Reed Member sinceMarch 2005 From: Sulzerland, UK 337 posts Posted by Simon Reed on Monday, April 25, 2005 2:08 PM As a British lover of American passenger rail, I'd say unequivocally yes, Amtrak fares are lower than European fares over a comparable distance, but commuter rail fares are also lower by the same comparison. I'm not sure what that indicates other than possibly a difference in perceptions of the price the passenger is prepared to pay. I would, however, absolutely disagree with any suggestion that people in the US travel by rail because they either can't afford to fly or are of a generation which regards flying with concern or alarm. I've done the best part of 20,000 miles on Amtrak and would say that the vast majority of passengers on long distance services are travelling by rail because they WANT to. The American people I've met on, say, the Sunset or Empire Builder have been people with sufficient means to fly, but enough spare time to travel by rail and watch their country going by the window. Maybe many of the people who fall into that category are retired, thereby creating the impression that Amtrak is a resort of the elderly, but retirement and the free time and financial independence to take the train will hopefully come to us all. It's an infinately renewable market. I wonder to what degree Amtrak's farebox woes would be lessened by jacking up long distance fares to a "European" level whilst aggressively marketing the train as a leisure commodity to those rich in both cash and time - i.e. the domestic senior market and the independently minded European/Australasian traveller. A national passenger rail infrastructure - even one as moribund and fragmented as yours - is a national asset. I sincerely hope to be riding Amtrak for many years yet, and for your sake as well as mine. Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Monday, April 25, 2005 1:18 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Thanks so todays tix price is beyond the cost of a tix in 76 using todays money[:o)][:D] Originally posted by oltmannd Three times over! -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, April 25, 2005 12:35 PM My theroy is as the elderly go to another place A/trak patronage will decrease as well as todays "baby" boomers or the next elderly come from the jet age not like todays elderly who came before the jet age & for the mosy part were afraid to fly. [:o)][8D] Originally posted by Muddy Creek Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, April 25, 2005 12:30 PM Thanks so todays tix price is beyond the cost of a tix in 76 using todays money[:o)][:D] Originally posted by oltmannd Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply dldance Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Near Promentory UT 1,590 posts Posted by dldance on Monday, April 25, 2005 12:00 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by Muddy Creek QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Sure you may have seen a few "young" persons but in general those "young" people who use the train are a on vast minority to more elderly riders. Though my experience tells me otherwise, assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, may I respectfully ask, "So what?" Wayne I agree. So what? My own anecdotal experience with LD trains has been young people in the coaches, old people in the sleepers. A year ago, on a trip in a coach on the Crescent, I was just about the oldest guy in the coach at 48! My experience on the Cardinal and the Texas Eagle last month was about the same - young in coach and older in sleepers -- and both trains were full. The Cardinal had been overbooked in coach from Indianapolis to Chicago. dd Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Monday, April 25, 2005 11:12 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by Muddy Creek QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Sure you may have seen a few "young" persons but in general those "young" people who use the train are a on vast minority to more elderly riders. Though my experience tells me otherwise, assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, may I respectfully ask, "So what?" Wayne I agree. So what? My own anecdotal experience with LD trains has been young people in the coaches, old people in the sleepers. A year ago, on a trip in a coach on the Crescent, I was just about the oldest guy in the coach at 48! -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Monday, April 25, 2005 11:10 AM No math whiz needed. Just use gov't CPI calculator http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm $5.25 in 1976 = $17.84 in 2005 I think Amtrak has (or at least had, in recent history) a cost control issue. -Don -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, April 25, 2005 10:33 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Sure you may have seen a few "young" persons but in general those "young" people who use the train are a on vast minority to more elderly riders. Though my experience tells me otherwise, assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, may I respectfully ask, "So what?" Wayne Reply Edit 123 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Originally posted by jimitimi Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 6:42 AM If you could ride a fast train to Chicago from Popular Bluff, MO in less than 3 hours, why would anyone fly? The coach seats are larger than first class seats on an airliner, oops, Southwest doesn't have first class, and there is a diner and lounge car to relax in......with a much better view of the countryside..... With a HSR train service able to run a Dallas to Chicago route in 6-7 hours, and be able to offer three times the frequency of our now daily service, you wouldn't have to wake up before dawn to catch the train or arrive home near midnight.... Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 5:16 AM first of all. not all trains in europe are high speed. the dutch run there stuff at about 90 mph. they use flyovers to avoid slowing trains leaving the stations at the same time going to different destinations. They also run like clockwork and can because the distances between stops is MUCH smaller than in the states. Yes gas is much higher but the trains are running on a timely schedule and arealmost always on time. It's very easy to figure out when you need to leave and what train goes where. This also leads to easy connections with other trains. But best of all you can ask any conductor for a ticket for any destination in Europe and get a price, what train or trains you need just like airline reservations!! The conductors carry a palm pilot like device that links with the transit database. Works real well. Reply Edit nobullchitbids Member sinceFebruary 2012 257 posts Posted by nobullchitbids on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 2:40 AM Here, Here, mate! Los Angeles once had a system similar to what you describe, the "Big Red Cars" of the Pacific Electric, and the last time I was there (some 30 years ago), some of the freeways still had the right-of-way in the middle clearly visible (the freeways actually followed the rail lines during the expansion after the World War). But, the Big Red Cars are long gone: Back around 1950, General Motors decided that, if the cars disappeared, more people would have to buy automobiles; so, GM subsidized a bus company to come in and drive PE out of business, then dropped its subsidization so that the bus company had to cut back its service as well. By then, most of the Big Reds had been torched. Some of the wiser supervisors objected at the time that the loss of PE and transformation to an all-auto society would bathe LA in air pollution, but GM officials glibly told the majority on the board that they had nothing to worry about! Needless to say, it was not long before LA was the smog capital of the world. GM, however, did have several stellar years. More recently, I believe several commuter operations in the Chicago and Cleveland areas were able to operate successfully because the rail lines did parallel the freeways, and management was able to advertise against all of those "suckers" sitting in the impassable lines of traffic during rush hour. So, yes, there are markets here for commuter and light rail, but the problem still remains: How to get to the ultimate destination? If there are not good bus connections at both ends, given the size of American cities, the railroads simply cannot offer the service the public needs. City governments looking to increase use of alternative modes of transportation do need to think in terms of such an integrated approach, and when they do, they have to think in terms of whether an all-bus line is better than a bus-rail combination. Reply Bulbous Member sinceJune 2004 9 posts Posted by Bulbous on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 1:47 AM The real wonder is that the cost to the government of the interstate system seems to be over looked, but the cost of a national rail system is too much to bear? I live in australia, and the problem here is the same, with people not caring about roads being built, but if you spend the same amount of money on passenger rail, then everyone complains that it is not well spent. They all fail to realise that the roads will probably not need expansion due to the thousands of people who will now travel by a competitive rail alternative...... the above is because in Perth, we are building rail lines down the centre of our freeways, with stations at all the major interchanges, and this is great advertising for the system when the trains fly past the people stuck in traffic jams...... :) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, April 25, 2005 10:12 PM North America is unique in its subsidies of airlines, air controllers, airports & screening personnel, minuscule landing fees; vs property taxes, a freight oriented mentality ( Pandora's Box in itself), the sacred cow of speed being essential, an administration that backs up air service no matter what while essentially ignoring rail service, freight schedules that DO delay passenger trains, only one Auto-train - - - and that is just scraping the surface. True costs and efficiencies need homework to be revealed. And how many are in favor of putting a lot of those Interstate-hogging semis on the railroad? No one likes to wait in line to be screened, sit in a seat made for midgets, go through boaring and deplaning like a herd of catle, to ride in a cigar-shaped dehumanizing vehicle. They do it because they are in a hurry. And they have to give a little on the speed end when the weather is uncooperative, when some bean-counter disallows connections between flights because of said weather delays and lets people go whistle until the next flight. Great way to live if you like association with sardines. Edna St. Vincent Millay is not the only one who enjoys trains, for many, many reasons. JD McFarland Reply Edit UPTRAIN Member sinceJune 2002 From: Independence, MO 1,570 posts Posted by UPTRAIN on Monday, April 25, 2005 9:35 PM Southwest Airlines is still cheaper between St. Louis and Chicago than Amtrak is from Poplar Bluff, MO to Chicago. Pump Reply nobullchitbids Member sinceFebruary 2012 257 posts Posted by nobullchitbids on Monday, April 25, 2005 8:42 PM The real issue re passenger rail service to some extent has nothing to do with fares or subsidies. Indeed, Connecticut recently did a study of its commuter and Amtrak services and concluded that, to the extent cost be the only issue, it would be cheaper to kill the subsidies (which would kill the trains) and buy all the riders cars or vans. Compared to highway use and highway options, the ridership is limited, and then there is the problem of setting up and paying for the final leg of the journey (which probably is nowhere near a train station). Amtrak is far more expensive than Metro, and to some extent the fares are silly, given one can take a subsidized bus for as little as a tenth of the cost of a train ticket (downside: trip does take longer). But, in the end, what many of the politicians will look at is whether we really want all of those additional cars and vans clogging the roads? If the environmentalists whine louder than the taxpayers, it is obvious what legislatures will do. Reply DSchmitt Member sinceSeptember 2003 From: California - moved to North Carolina 2018 4,422 posts Posted by DSchmitt on Monday, April 25, 2005 8:22 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by morseman No mention in this forum comparing Via Rail & Amtrak Several months ago I compared prices for a trip from Toronto to VCancouver on Via with a trip on the same dates from Philadelphia to Vancouver. Price was nearly double on Via even taking into account the exchange on the Cdn/US dollar. Booked Amtrak but had to cancel account our travelling companions became sick. Just got back from Amtrak trip Philly-Ft.Lauderdale. Train was packed both directions, Meals were much improved, Found price quite reasonable. Most passengers in sleepers were 30-50 Yrs old . My wife and I will continue to take one or two Amtrak tripa a year and quite often include it with a cruise. Interesting: the fare on Via compared to Amtrak. One of the excuses for Amtrak fares low is the low cost of gasoline in the USA. I believe the cost of gas in Canada is not much higher than in the US. I started this thread to get people thinking about Amtrak's fares, and whether they could be increased. Would increasing fares allow reduced subsidies and/or provide money needed to improve the system? Would, as some have suggested, there be such a large decrease in ridership that loses would be higher? Is it possible that while there would be an initial loss of riders, it would not be a permanent loss? I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it. I don't have a leg to stand on. Reply jimitimi Member sinceApril 2003 From: Andover, MN 33 posts Posted by jimitimi on Monday, April 25, 2005 8:03 PM I am only 40 and travel A/trak whenever possible when I need to go to Milwaukee or Chicago. The price is reasonable and I even get a "day" room as the meals are included and they are more comfortable. Until the Bush and Mineta Circus Act leaves town and gets realistic and gets off their "the states will pay" issue rail service will continue to drag along without any mandate. Let's look at the rail system as a SYSTEM and invest in it like the 1950's Defense Interstate Highway SYSTEM and we'd have high speed competetive trains running all over the country! The midwest HSR plan looks like a great way to go. I see the projections call for profitable incremental cost operation as long as the infrastructure is funded. Then charge a fare that covers the marginal costs and we'd be in business. As far as I last checked, the airline industry isn't exactly printing money, rather hemorraging red ink! Reply DSchmitt Member sinceSeptember 2003 From: California - moved to North Carolina 2018 4,422 posts Posted by DSchmitt on Monday, April 25, 2005 7:59 PM to thefox I chose San Francisco as the starting point because it is the major well known city closest to my home, therefore they are train trips I might take. The fares were for: California Zephyr to Salt Lake City Coast Starlight to Seattle Coast Starlight to Los Angeles None are Amtrak California trains. The Amtrak California trains are: Pacific Surfliner San Luis Opispo-San Diego, San Jauquins, Oakland-Stockton-Bakersfield, Sacramento-Stockton-Bakersfield Capitol Corridor, Auburn-Sacramento-Oakland-San Jose plus connecting buses in each case I was hoping that someone might be able to come up with subsidy information for European trains to compare with Amtrak. Another question is: How do the costs compare with peoples income in the Europe and in the US? I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it. I don't have a leg to stand on. Reply morseman Member sinceJuly 2004 From: Ontario - Canada 463 posts Posted by morseman on Monday, April 25, 2005 7:42 PM No mention in this forum comparing Via Rail & Amtrak Several months ago I compared prices for a trip from Toronto to VCancouver on Via with a trip on the same dates from Philadelphia to Vancouver. Price was nearly double on Via even taking into account the exchange on the Cdn/US dollar. Booked Amtrak but had to cancel account our travelling companions became sick. Just got back from Amtrak trip Philly-Ft.Lauderdale. Train was packed both directions, Meals were much improved, Found price quite reasonable. Most passengers in sleepers were 30-50 Yrs old . My wife and I will continue to take one or two Amtrak tripa a year and quite often include it with a cruise. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, April 25, 2005 7:18 PM geoffrey: don't judge Amtrak by the Sunset Limited... longest route=longest time to become late. And often times they [Amtrak] can't help it, it's the freight railroad's fault. To anyone else: Some people (e.g. U.S. pres, and his sec of transportation, Mineta) seem to think that the NE Corridor is profitable. On a day to day basis (this was before Acela got taken off the rails) yeah it is. However, over a period of time, say a year, maintenance costs still turn it into a negative profit. No railroad (or commuter rail, etc.) in the world (except maybe a luxury railroad that's not really about transportation) is actually profitable over a any real period of time. In fact the longer routes on Amtrak have shown that they make closer to breaking even (still a long shot) than the NE corridor. Why do you think the railroads wanted to unload passenger service in the first place? Privatization is definitely not the way to go. Why choose Amtrak at all? One big reason for me, I have been cross-continent MANY times by train and plane (and I'm not that old either) and I saw a heck of lot more of the continent and learned more by train than by plane. Finally, I don't remember who started the thread, but..... You can't use Amtrak California fares to compare Amtrak to anything except Amtrak California itself. They are different genres entirely in terms of fares and service, etc. In my opinion the premise of this thread was fairly ridiculous to start with. The fares are already high enough to turn many potential riders away. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, April 25, 2005 6:48 PM Gas in Europe at double the price of the USA ?- I wish-- The price of Unleaded Gas in Britain is nearly $10.00 PER GALLON. Road tax on my car is $350.00 per year. I was in Las Vegas in Febuary and paid around $1.92 a gallon. Tax on Gas is Around 70% here. Some rail journeys ie Manchester to London return cost around $300 return with Virgin for a total return mileage of around 390 miles. Having said all of that we had tickets from New Orleans for the return leg of 'The Sunset Ltd' to Orlando in February last year for a train that was 27 Hours late and turned into a bus. We won't be travelling with Amtrak again. Reply Edit darth9x9 Member sinceDecember 2002 From: US 665 posts Posted by darth9x9 on Monday, April 25, 2005 6:06 PM Comparing the fares of Amtrak to those in Europe is like comparing apples to oranges. More American's own cars per capita than Europeans. Also America's infrastructure favors the car where as Europe's favors rail. Americans have always loved their cars and the nation has dramatically catered to the automobile since WWII. On the other hand after WWII, Europe had little to no infrastructure with all of the destruction from the war. Europe decided to build a rail network - it was easy (easier) back then. I have spent several years in Europe and I love to travel by rail in Europe. They have trains that go most everywhere you need to and if not, a short cab ride will get you to your destination. The other thing is that the trains run frequently in Europe. And don't be one minute late for catching your train or you WILL be chasing it down the platform! Bill Carl (modeling Chessie and predecessors from 1973-1983) Member of Four County Society of Model Engineers NCE DCC Master Visit the FCSME at www.FCSME.org Modular railroading at its best! If it has an X in it, it sucks! And yes, I just had my modeler's license renewed last week! Reply dldance Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Near Promentory UT 1,590 posts Posted by dldance on Monday, April 25, 2005 4:09 PM Originally posted by spbed My theroy is as the elderly go to another place A/trak patronage will decrease as well as todays "baby" boomers or the next elderly come from the jet age not like todays elderly who came before the jet age & for the mosy part were afraid to fly. [:o)][8D] Interesting theory - but us "baby boomers" are just approaching our "Amtrak" years. The demographic of early/near retired people is the fastest growing demographic in North American and will be for the next 10 years. These are the ones with the money and the time to ride Amtrak. dd Reply Simon Reed Member sinceMarch 2005 From: Sulzerland, UK 337 posts Posted by Simon Reed on Monday, April 25, 2005 2:08 PM As a British lover of American passenger rail, I'd say unequivocally yes, Amtrak fares are lower than European fares over a comparable distance, but commuter rail fares are also lower by the same comparison. I'm not sure what that indicates other than possibly a difference in perceptions of the price the passenger is prepared to pay. I would, however, absolutely disagree with any suggestion that people in the US travel by rail because they either can't afford to fly or are of a generation which regards flying with concern or alarm. I've done the best part of 20,000 miles on Amtrak and would say that the vast majority of passengers on long distance services are travelling by rail because they WANT to. The American people I've met on, say, the Sunset or Empire Builder have been people with sufficient means to fly, but enough spare time to travel by rail and watch their country going by the window. Maybe many of the people who fall into that category are retired, thereby creating the impression that Amtrak is a resort of the elderly, but retirement and the free time and financial independence to take the train will hopefully come to us all. It's an infinately renewable market. I wonder to what degree Amtrak's farebox woes would be lessened by jacking up long distance fares to a "European" level whilst aggressively marketing the train as a leisure commodity to those rich in both cash and time - i.e. the domestic senior market and the independently minded European/Australasian traveller. A national passenger rail infrastructure - even one as moribund and fragmented as yours - is a national asset. I sincerely hope to be riding Amtrak for many years yet, and for your sake as well as mine. Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Monday, April 25, 2005 1:18 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Thanks so todays tix price is beyond the cost of a tix in 76 using todays money[:o)][:D] Originally posted by oltmannd Three times over! -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, April 25, 2005 12:35 PM My theroy is as the elderly go to another place A/trak patronage will decrease as well as todays "baby" boomers or the next elderly come from the jet age not like todays elderly who came before the jet age & for the mosy part were afraid to fly. [:o)][8D] Originally posted by Muddy Creek Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, April 25, 2005 12:30 PM Thanks so todays tix price is beyond the cost of a tix in 76 using todays money[:o)][:D] Originally posted by oltmannd Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply dldance Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Near Promentory UT 1,590 posts Posted by dldance on Monday, April 25, 2005 12:00 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by Muddy Creek QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Sure you may have seen a few "young" persons but in general those "young" people who use the train are a on vast minority to more elderly riders. Though my experience tells me otherwise, assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, may I respectfully ask, "So what?" Wayne I agree. So what? My own anecdotal experience with LD trains has been young people in the coaches, old people in the sleepers. A year ago, on a trip in a coach on the Crescent, I was just about the oldest guy in the coach at 48! My experience on the Cardinal and the Texas Eagle last month was about the same - young in coach and older in sleepers -- and both trains were full. The Cardinal had been overbooked in coach from Indianapolis to Chicago. dd Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Monday, April 25, 2005 11:12 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by Muddy Creek QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Sure you may have seen a few "young" persons but in general those "young" people who use the train are a on vast minority to more elderly riders. Though my experience tells me otherwise, assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, may I respectfully ask, "So what?" Wayne I agree. So what? My own anecdotal experience with LD trains has been young people in the coaches, old people in the sleepers. A year ago, on a trip in a coach on the Crescent, I was just about the oldest guy in the coach at 48! -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Monday, April 25, 2005 11:10 AM No math whiz needed. Just use gov't CPI calculator http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm $5.25 in 1976 = $17.84 in 2005 I think Amtrak has (or at least had, in recent history) a cost control issue. -Don -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, April 25, 2005 10:33 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Sure you may have seen a few "young" persons but in general those "young" people who use the train are a on vast minority to more elderly riders. Though my experience tells me otherwise, assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, may I respectfully ask, "So what?" Wayne Reply Edit 123 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Pump
QUOTE: Originally posted by morseman No mention in this forum comparing Via Rail & Amtrak Several months ago I compared prices for a trip from Toronto to VCancouver on Via with a trip on the same dates from Philadelphia to Vancouver. Price was nearly double on Via even taking into account the exchange on the Cdn/US dollar. Booked Amtrak but had to cancel account our travelling companions became sick. Just got back from Amtrak trip Philly-Ft.Lauderdale. Train was packed both directions, Meals were much improved, Found price quite reasonable. Most passengers in sleepers were 30-50 Yrs old . My wife and I will continue to take one or two Amtrak tripa a year and quite often include it with a cruise.
I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it.
I don't have a leg to stand on.
Bill Carl (modeling Chessie and predecessors from 1973-1983) Member of Four County Society of Model Engineers NCE DCC Master Visit the FCSME at www.FCSME.org Modular railroading at its best! If it has an X in it, it sucks! And yes, I just had my modeler's license renewed last week!
Originally posted by spbed My theroy is as the elderly go to another place A/trak patronage will decrease as well as todays "baby" boomers or the next elderly come from the jet age not like todays elderly who came before the jet age & for the mosy part were afraid to fly. [:o)][8D] Interesting theory - but us "baby boomers" are just approaching our "Amtrak" years. The demographic of early/near retired people is the fastest growing demographic in North American and will be for the next 10 years. These are the ones with the money and the time to ride Amtrak. dd Reply Simon Reed Member sinceMarch 2005 From: Sulzerland, UK 337 posts Posted by Simon Reed on Monday, April 25, 2005 2:08 PM As a British lover of American passenger rail, I'd say unequivocally yes, Amtrak fares are lower than European fares over a comparable distance, but commuter rail fares are also lower by the same comparison. I'm not sure what that indicates other than possibly a difference in perceptions of the price the passenger is prepared to pay. I would, however, absolutely disagree with any suggestion that people in the US travel by rail because they either can't afford to fly or are of a generation which regards flying with concern or alarm. I've done the best part of 20,000 miles on Amtrak and would say that the vast majority of passengers on long distance services are travelling by rail because they WANT to. The American people I've met on, say, the Sunset or Empire Builder have been people with sufficient means to fly, but enough spare time to travel by rail and watch their country going by the window. Maybe many of the people who fall into that category are retired, thereby creating the impression that Amtrak is a resort of the elderly, but retirement and the free time and financial independence to take the train will hopefully come to us all. It's an infinately renewable market. I wonder to what degree Amtrak's farebox woes would be lessened by jacking up long distance fares to a "European" level whilst aggressively marketing the train as a leisure commodity to those rich in both cash and time - i.e. the domestic senior market and the independently minded European/Australasian traveller. A national passenger rail infrastructure - even one as moribund and fragmented as yours - is a national asset. I sincerely hope to be riding Amtrak for many years yet, and for your sake as well as mine. Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Monday, April 25, 2005 1:18 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Thanks so todays tix price is beyond the cost of a tix in 76 using todays money[:o)][:D] Originally posted by oltmannd Three times over! -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, April 25, 2005 12:35 PM My theroy is as the elderly go to another place A/trak patronage will decrease as well as todays "baby" boomers or the next elderly come from the jet age not like todays elderly who came before the jet age & for the mosy part were afraid to fly. [:o)][8D] Originally posted by Muddy Creek Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, April 25, 2005 12:30 PM Thanks so todays tix price is beyond the cost of a tix in 76 using todays money[:o)][:D] Originally posted by oltmannd Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply dldance Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Near Promentory UT 1,590 posts Posted by dldance on Monday, April 25, 2005 12:00 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by Muddy Creek QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Sure you may have seen a few "young" persons but in general those "young" people who use the train are a on vast minority to more elderly riders. Though my experience tells me otherwise, assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, may I respectfully ask, "So what?" Wayne I agree. So what? My own anecdotal experience with LD trains has been young people in the coaches, old people in the sleepers. A year ago, on a trip in a coach on the Crescent, I was just about the oldest guy in the coach at 48! My experience on the Cardinal and the Texas Eagle last month was about the same - young in coach and older in sleepers -- and both trains were full. The Cardinal had been overbooked in coach from Indianapolis to Chicago. dd Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Monday, April 25, 2005 11:12 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by Muddy Creek QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Sure you may have seen a few "young" persons but in general those "young" people who use the train are a on vast minority to more elderly riders. Though my experience tells me otherwise, assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, may I respectfully ask, "So what?" Wayne I agree. So what? My own anecdotal experience with LD trains has been young people in the coaches, old people in the sleepers. A year ago, on a trip in a coach on the Crescent, I was just about the oldest guy in the coach at 48! -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Monday, April 25, 2005 11:10 AM No math whiz needed. Just use gov't CPI calculator http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm $5.25 in 1976 = $17.84 in 2005 I think Amtrak has (or at least had, in recent history) a cost control issue. -Don -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, April 25, 2005 10:33 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Sure you may have seen a few "young" persons but in general those "young" people who use the train are a on vast minority to more elderly riders. Though my experience tells me otherwise, assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, may I respectfully ask, "So what?" Wayne Reply Edit 123 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Thanks so todays tix price is beyond the cost of a tix in 76 using todays money[:o)][:D] Originally posted by oltmannd Three times over! -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, April 25, 2005 12:35 PM My theroy is as the elderly go to another place A/trak patronage will decrease as well as todays "baby" boomers or the next elderly come from the jet age not like todays elderly who came before the jet age & for the mosy part were afraid to fly. [:o)][8D] Originally posted by Muddy Creek Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, April 25, 2005 12:30 PM Thanks so todays tix price is beyond the cost of a tix in 76 using todays money[:o)][:D] Originally posted by oltmannd Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply dldance Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Near Promentory UT 1,590 posts Posted by dldance on Monday, April 25, 2005 12:00 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by Muddy Creek QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Sure you may have seen a few "young" persons but in general those "young" people who use the train are a on vast minority to more elderly riders. Though my experience tells me otherwise, assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, may I respectfully ask, "So what?" Wayne I agree. So what? My own anecdotal experience with LD trains has been young people in the coaches, old people in the sleepers. A year ago, on a trip in a coach on the Crescent, I was just about the oldest guy in the coach at 48! My experience on the Cardinal and the Texas Eagle last month was about the same - young in coach and older in sleepers -- and both trains were full. The Cardinal had been overbooked in coach from Indianapolis to Chicago. dd Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Monday, April 25, 2005 11:12 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by Muddy Creek QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Sure you may have seen a few "young" persons but in general those "young" people who use the train are a on vast minority to more elderly riders. Though my experience tells me otherwise, assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, may I respectfully ask, "So what?" Wayne I agree. So what? My own anecdotal experience with LD trains has been young people in the coaches, old people in the sleepers. A year ago, on a trip in a coach on the Crescent, I was just about the oldest guy in the coach at 48! -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Monday, April 25, 2005 11:10 AM No math whiz needed. Just use gov't CPI calculator http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm $5.25 in 1976 = $17.84 in 2005 I think Amtrak has (or at least had, in recent history) a cost control issue. -Don -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, April 25, 2005 10:33 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Sure you may have seen a few "young" persons but in general those "young" people who use the train are a on vast minority to more elderly riders. Though my experience tells me otherwise, assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, may I respectfully ask, "So what?" Wayne Reply Edit 123 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Originally posted by oltmannd
Originally posted by Muddy Creek Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Monday, April 25, 2005 12:30 PM Thanks so todays tix price is beyond the cost of a tix in 76 using todays money[:o)][:D] Originally posted by oltmannd Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply dldance Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Near Promentory UT 1,590 posts Posted by dldance on Monday, April 25, 2005 12:00 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by Muddy Creek QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Sure you may have seen a few "young" persons but in general those "young" people who use the train are a on vast minority to more elderly riders. Though my experience tells me otherwise, assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, may I respectfully ask, "So what?" Wayne I agree. So what? My own anecdotal experience with LD trains has been young people in the coaches, old people in the sleepers. A year ago, on a trip in a coach on the Crescent, I was just about the oldest guy in the coach at 48! My experience on the Cardinal and the Texas Eagle last month was about the same - young in coach and older in sleepers -- and both trains were full. The Cardinal had been overbooked in coach from Indianapolis to Chicago. dd Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Monday, April 25, 2005 11:12 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by Muddy Creek QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Sure you may have seen a few "young" persons but in general those "young" people who use the train are a on vast minority to more elderly riders. Though my experience tells me otherwise, assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, may I respectfully ask, "So what?" Wayne I agree. So what? My own anecdotal experience with LD trains has been young people in the coaches, old people in the sleepers. A year ago, on a trip in a coach on the Crescent, I was just about the oldest guy in the coach at 48! -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Monday, April 25, 2005 11:10 AM No math whiz needed. Just use gov't CPI calculator http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm $5.25 in 1976 = $17.84 in 2005 I think Amtrak has (or at least had, in recent history) a cost control issue. -Don -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, April 25, 2005 10:33 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Sure you may have seen a few "young" persons but in general those "young" people who use the train are a on vast minority to more elderly riders. Though my experience tells me otherwise, assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, may I respectfully ask, "So what?" Wayne Reply Edit 123 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Originally posted by oltmannd Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply dldance Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Near Promentory UT 1,590 posts Posted by dldance on Monday, April 25, 2005 12:00 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by Muddy Creek QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Sure you may have seen a few "young" persons but in general those "young" people who use the train are a on vast minority to more elderly riders. Though my experience tells me otherwise, assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, may I respectfully ask, "So what?" Wayne I agree. So what? My own anecdotal experience with LD trains has been young people in the coaches, old people in the sleepers. A year ago, on a trip in a coach on the Crescent, I was just about the oldest guy in the coach at 48! My experience on the Cardinal and the Texas Eagle last month was about the same - young in coach and older in sleepers -- and both trains were full. The Cardinal had been overbooked in coach from Indianapolis to Chicago. dd Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Monday, April 25, 2005 11:12 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by Muddy Creek QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Sure you may have seen a few "young" persons but in general those "young" people who use the train are a on vast minority to more elderly riders. Though my experience tells me otherwise, assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, may I respectfully ask, "So what?" Wayne I agree. So what? My own anecdotal experience with LD trains has been young people in the coaches, old people in the sleepers. A year ago, on a trip in a coach on the Crescent, I was just about the oldest guy in the coach at 48! -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Monday, April 25, 2005 11:10 AM No math whiz needed. Just use gov't CPI calculator http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm $5.25 in 1976 = $17.84 in 2005 I think Amtrak has (or at least had, in recent history) a cost control issue. -Don -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, April 25, 2005 10:33 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Sure you may have seen a few "young" persons but in general those "young" people who use the train are a on vast minority to more elderly riders. Though my experience tells me otherwise, assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, may I respectfully ask, "So what?" Wayne Reply Edit 123 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by Muddy Creek QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Sure you may have seen a few "young" persons but in general those "young" people who use the train are a on vast minority to more elderly riders. Though my experience tells me otherwise, assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, may I respectfully ask, "So what?" Wayne I agree. So what? My own anecdotal experience with LD trains has been young people in the coaches, old people in the sleepers. A year ago, on a trip in a coach on the Crescent, I was just about the oldest guy in the coach at 48!
QUOTE: Originally posted by Muddy Creek QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Sure you may have seen a few "young" persons but in general those "young" people who use the train are a on vast minority to more elderly riders. Though my experience tells me otherwise, assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, may I respectfully ask, "So what?" Wayne
QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed Sure you may have seen a few "young" persons but in general those "young" people who use the train are a on vast minority to more elderly riders.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.