Certainly an unusual point of view in times, when our lives are required to move faster and faster. The speed we have to move in forces us to act/react, before we have the time to think, and quite often the results are not what we intended to achieve.
I´d say, the reason of travel decides on the speed. If you travel on business, you have to economize on the time you spend on the traveling itself. If you travel for leisure, the time spend on board a train is part of the fun.
Btw, there is a trade-off between travel time and comfort. In the 1930´s, Deutsche Reichsbahn introduced a fast ( for that time) service between Hamburg and Berlin, using luxury trains consisting of diesel-electric cars, with a superb on board service. Traveling time was 185 minutes between those two cities. Today´s ICE trains do that jump in just 100 minutes, but those 100 minutes seem to be endless, as the ICE trains are no match in comfort.
Just a reading suggestion:
Sten Nadolny, The Discovery of Slowness
YOur thinking parallel's mine. Investment in long distance trains should be to increase reliability, further improve comfort and amenities, insure the best possible food service, and make operation more economical. Where they operate over lines upgraded as corridors, they can benefit by the increased speed (and smoothness of ride) for the length of the corridor, as in NY-Washington for the Crescent and the Florida trains, and the Empire Service corridor for the Lake Shore.
I still don't understand why the Palmetto doesn't turn at Jacksonville instead of Savanna. Only two trains a day to Florida?
travelingengineerThinking that it might be antithetical to posit these thoughts on the HSR threads, may I respectfully suggest that, at least I and perhaps others, am quite satisfied with present Amtrak LD route speeds, albeit an upgrade of some amenities would be in order. To me, the JOURNEY is more important than the DESTINATION, so rushing to get somewhere is a shame. Obviously, I am fortunate that my present activity does not require high-speed. With delight do I have the pleasure of a Bedroom, and its associated services, the Coast Starlight Parlour Car, and the Metropolitan Lounges. With reading material, occasionally fascinating fellow travelers (one having been Marcus J. Ruef, BofLE VP, coincidentally in my Sleeping Car once), and interesting and occasionally beautiful American scenery, I am always a "happy camper." Are there any of you who share this rather unconventional traveling philosophy?
I love travelling on the long distance trains - in a sleeper - and eating in the diner. It's a really great experience. I used to do it as much as possible for business - when I could get away with it - and for pleasure back when my Amtrak pass got me 50% off the fare.
So, I'd really like for there to be a way to keep some of them around. But, finding a way has to include more than just having Amtrak beg for their subsidy every year. I really doubt the status quo is sustainable, so Amtrak ought to get busy figuring ways to cut costs and improve service. A declining, reduces subsidy per passenger mile would make their subsidized operation more palatable and reduce the incidence of Amtrak being used as a poster child for what is wrong with government.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
I think they are trying, but sometimes freight railroads won't let them do all they can, like the UP and the Sunset. Still, my hope is that the UP will realize it can have a real PR victory in a daily Sunset, and reduced costs to Amtrak , once its capacity improvements are finally complete.
Even if HSR were economically/practically feasible on longer distance runs, it still would not be competitive with airlines on any runs over 4-5 hours in length. So CHI-DEN, fast overnight train (somewhat faster than the old DZ) and day trains making the run in 5 hours could serve many folks, but that is about the limit and at a very high cost. HSR is very competitive up to ~400 miles; even higher speed (125 mph) is fairly competitive. I do not believe the concept of running LD trains for the JOURNEY is a proper use of public funds; I say that because that is essentially a land cruise.
Although Dave Klepper makes some nice points, his idea that since many people use the NEC multiple times per month versus a few others 1-2 times per year on LD trains does not appear to be a winning point.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Sir Madog <snip> I´d say, the reason of travel decides on the speed. If you travel on business, you have to economize on the time you spend on the traveling itself. If you travel for leisure, the time spend on board a train is part of the fun. <snip> Just a reading suggestion: Sten Nadolny, The Discovery of Slowness
<snip>
To some extent, the economics depends on the distance travelled. When I lived in the Midwest and had to travel frequently to the East Coast, I often chose Amtrak over flying. I could get from Chicago to Boston, New York or D.C. in less than a day, while sleeping, eating and working on the train. I arrived refreshed, it was much less of a hassle than flying and the total cost vs. a plane ticket, meals and a hotel room was about the same.
John Timm
daveklepper I think they are trying, but sometimes freight railroads won't let them do all they can, like the UP and the Sunset. Still, my hope is that the UP will realize it can have a real PR victory in a daily Sunset, and reduced costs to Amtrak , once its capacity improvements are finally complete.
That's part of the problem with Amtrak...
I think they have become largely inbred. All the folks there at the start are long gone and there hasn't been anyone with enough familiarity with the host roads to successfully navigate a change like Amtrak wanted to do with the Sunset. The did all their "in-house" work, then sprung it on the world, blindsiding UP, and ultimately winding up being smacked-down by UP. After their near-meltdowns, the UP is uber-sensitive to capacity issues, particularly on THAT route. Amtrak should have known and done some inside schmoozing and gotten a deal done in private before making any public announcement.
Amtrak really needs a #1 or #2 guy who knows and understands the leaders on the host roads. There are good working relationships between Amtrak and the host roads at the "underling" levels, but not at the top where these deals ultimately get done.
Amtrak needs to find a "true believer" out there in the Class 1 world who is recently retired or blocked from the top by younger talent to come in and run things. A Reistrup/Claytor/Gunn kind of guy - perhaps more progressive than Claytor and with smoother edges than Gunn.
I disagree, 90mph would be much better. I have rode the CZ between Illinois and Denver many times, 16 hours of that in coach is a lot to take, most of it is in the dark, and even if it weren't 1k miles of cornfields is not my idea of a vacation. Contrary to what several self-proclaimed "experts" on this board argue Amtrak is an essential mode of transportation, not a vacation cruise liner. One can take it for fun, just as someone can pay to ride in an airplane for fun, but that isn't the social purpose that it serves nor the reason why it is necessary, as a public good, for the government to support it. And in the budget that just passed Amtrak receives around $1 Billion per year while highways get $39 Billion, I don't care how clever the "inbred" (the insult of an anti-rail passenger type here for Amtrak's employees, not mine) executives running the place while getting by with scraps are it isn't possible to provide an adequate national rail service on $1Billion.
I used the term "land cruise" as analogous to what almost all passenger ship traffic is and has been for years, a voyage where the ship's myriad of activities is the primary draw, not just transport to the destination(s). There are few travel activities that do not rely in part on publicly funded facilities, even if some folks argue they are paid for by user fees. That said, it seems to me that LD trains are: 1. not primarily used as a means of transportation, and 2., are far more heavily subsidized by most metrics than corridor trains. Therefore I just don't see how their continuance, particularly the sleepers, can be justified.
A Reistrup is probably just what is needed. Someone who is aggressive, progressive and knows the railroads, their CEO's (and where all the skeletons are buried!!).
schlimm I used the term "land cruise" as analogous to what almost all passenger ship traffic is and has been for years, a voyage where the ship's myriad of activities is the primary draw, not just transport to the destination(s). There are few travel activities that do not rely in part on publicly funded facilities, even if some folks argue they are paid for by user fees. That said, it seems to me that LD trains are: 1. not primarily used as a means of transportation, and 2., are far more heavily subsidized by most metrics than corridor trains. Therefore I just don't see how their continuance, particularly the sleepers, can be justified.
Have you ever traveled on a long distance passenger train, and if so, interacted with those traveling? They ride them primarily because they are cheaper than flying ($150 round trip from Denver to Chicago rather than upwards of $400, plus the cost of getting to and from the airport or paying for parking there), more comfortable and faster than a bus (you can get up and walk around, and eat when you feel like it not just the few times the bus stops), and not prone to unreliability like one's old car can be. When I rode it it often was FULL of lower income (often African-American) people traveling from Oakland to Chicago to meet relatives, once a year or so. The kids sometimes struck up conversations with me, many of whom have never seen barges etc. I often talked to them about how hard it was to be on a train for two days, in coach, and they would simply say that more than $5000 for say, a family of four to fly was out of the question but that they could manage $2000 or so on the train. People from my part of Illinois ride it because it is cheaper than driving alone (it makes sense to drive to Denver ONLY if you have a reliable car and more than one person in the car) and all the rigamarole with driving to Chicago (two hours) paying for parking, renting a car in Denver, plus the more expensive tickets just don't make sense.
I think most of the people on this board are upper-middle class professional unable to put themselves in the shoes of lower income working people.
Perhaps so, and more true in the summer and other vacation times. However, your fares are rather off. Looking at a number of days up to a month out, the CZ is more than what you mentioned - between $311-432 RT coach. I can find flights for as little as $419 RT or even $328 RT on Southwest. And one can get to O'Hare or Midway airport about as cheaply as to Union Station by public transport. if you had to drive, there is nothing affordable near Union Station, while one can park at O'Hare for as little as $6.75-9.00/day.
Yes, IF you live in Chicago or its suburbs, not everyone does. The CZ stops in Princeton, 25 miles from my hometown, we can get friends to take us there but not the two and a half hours to O'Hare (on a good day) 130 miles away. As far as the fares, the last time I rode the CZ was when I lived in Denver seven years ago and my grandpa in Illinois died, it was $75 one way, I found out about the funeral at around 4PM and a neighbor had me on the train within half an hour, before the 6PM departure, no way I could have done that to DIA, minimum $500 on United with no reservation, not many flights that time of day, my dad would have needed to spend half a day getting me in Chicago, we would have arrived home after midnight, as it was it only took an hour to get me in Princeton. The fares are up since I last rode, part of it is due to political pressure not to discount last minute tickets to fill the train up, as well as a car shortage.
Phoeebe vet has beat this problem to death. It is not slow trains it is slow zones. They may be either permanent slow orders, temporary slow orders, track geometry, track grades, city runningn streets ; nno crossing signals, ect; slow track switches, stick rail, on and on. Take any AMTRAK TIMETABLE AND FIGURE THE average speed It usually is below 50 mph and the cardinao / hoosier is below 30.
get rid of the slow zones and you will speed up trains.
blue streak 1 Phoeebe vet has beat this problem to death. It is not slow trains it is slow zones. They may be either permanent slow orders, temporary slow orders, track geometry, track grades, city runningn streets ; nno crossing signals, ect; slow track switches, stick rail, on and on. Take any AMTRAK TIMETABLE AND FIGURE THE average speed It usually is below 50 mph and the cardinao / hoosier is below 30. get rid of the slow zones and you will speed up trains.
The issue on this thread is not how to speed up the trains but rather does it matter if they are slow or fast, since some here think long distance trains are like a Carnival cruise, not real transportation, "the point isn't the destination but the journey" etc.. But I agree about the slow orders, the Q picked a poor location for their line across Iowa (the CZ route) with drainage problems that slow the trains down, as well as no CTC so no way to pass a coal train, BNSF and Amtrak received TIGER money for CTC islands but were turned down for the sub ballast rebuilding.
DwightBranch since some here think long distance trains are like a Carnival cruise, not real transportation, "the point isn't the destination but the journey" etc..
since some here think long distance trains are like a Carnival cruise, not real transportation, "the point isn't the destination but the journey" etc..
Sorry if I don't happen to agree with your view. If those of us who see a useful role for passenger train service did not have to fight over the scraps, I'd agree there is a place for LD trains, which serve so few people. But funds are very limited and it is quite "rational" to use those funds where they can make the biggest positive impact, i.e., new and existing short distance corridors.
schlimm DwightBranch: since some here think long distance trains are like a Carnival cruise, not real transportation, "the point isn't the destination but the journey" etc.. Sorry if I don't happen to agree with your view. If those of us who see a useful role for passenger train service did not have to fight over the scraps, I'd agree there is a place for LD trains, which serve so few people. But funds are very limited and it is quite "rational" to use those funds where they can make the biggest positive impact, i.e., new and existing short distance corridors.
DwightBranch: since some here think long distance trains are like a Carnival cruise, not real transportation, "the point isn't the destination but the journey" etc..
Make the most impact for whom? Those that only travel short distances?
I think both schools of thought on this issue/thread are correct. I think LD passenger trains need to be on-time, dependable, and affordable. And I think they ought to offer consistently fine service at various levels of accommodation.
That being said, let me address myself to travelingengineer's original question about the amenities and qualities of the trains and their importance to some of us habitues. Here's how I like to travel on Amtrak:
Like travelingeningeer, I have learned to travel only by roomette or bedroom. Of course it costs more, but it's well worth it; I also have the Amtrak Guest Rewards Card, and frankly it's been a long time since I paid for a train trip in a roomette or bedroom. First class Amtrak travel brings true relaxation and a sense of adventure. I completely understand that coach passengers have an entirely different set of needs which I hope is being met.
Soon after The Lake Shore Limited departs Penn Station, I walk to the back of the car and get ice and a plastic cup. Back in my room it's cocktail time and a can of Planters Peanuts is popped open. Before long I put my earphones on and find on my mp3 player the exact right music to enjoy as the train charges north along the Hudson at 79 mph. Sometimes I like blue grass "trains" music, sometimes it's Artie Shaw, or even Wagner.
I've learned to like my meals in the dining car while the train is moving and not stopped at a station for a long period of time. I've also learned to try to spot the table that has an empty seat and someone who looks like he or she might be interesting to talk to. While it can be fun to eat a meal with another railfan or three, I find I quickly tire of "can you top this?" or the statistics or opinion-spouter: you know the type, I'm sure.
Back in my room, I have my faithful scanner at my side set to all the necessary frequencies needed for my journey. Many years ago I got tired of wondering, "where are we and why are we stopping here?"
Now all of that would be meaningless if I didn't travel on Amtrak expecting some kind of delay or unforeseen event. I've been on the Zephyr when we were delayed by hours because an elderly passenger in a coach had died, therefore the train was "technically a crime scene" I was told. A few years later on the same train there was a delay of 4 hours due to an avalanche. I noted that since we all had cell and internet service the level of passenger anxiety as we waited was very low, indeed. I've been in a derailment, and I've traveled across the desert for hours towards Los Angeles because the signals weren't working. You see my point? No one takes Amtrak LD because they must be on time; it's simply not guaranteed. For me, close to on time is good enough. And I wouldn't take the train if I didn't enjoy it.
Amtrak travel is an adventure every time for so many more reasons. Now, travelingengineer, am I "a happy camper" too? Well, let me ask, is the train on time?
DwightBranch schlimm: DwightBranch: since some here think long distance trains are like a Carnival cruise, not real transportation, "the point isn't the destination but the journey" etc.. Sorry if I don't happen to agree with your view. If those of us who see a useful role for passenger train service did not have to fight over the scraps, I'd agree there is a place for LD trains, which serve so few people. But funds are very limited and it is quite "rational" to use those funds where they can make the biggest positive impact, i.e., new and existing short distance corridors. Make the most impact for whom? Those that only travel short distances?
schlimm: DwightBranch: since some here think long distance trains are like a Carnival cruise, not real transportation, "the point isn't the destination but the journey" etc.. Sorry if I don't happen to agree with your view. If those of us who see a useful role for passenger train service did not have to fight over the scraps, I'd agree there is a place for LD trains, which serve so few people. But funds are very limited and it is quite "rational" to use those funds where they can make the biggest positive impact, i.e., new and existing short distance corridors.
Most passenger miles per subsidy dollar.
Or, put another way, the greatest good for the greatest number.
Don Phillips, August 2012: "(Note: Amtrak has tried to claim that the Acela "makes a profit". That ain't so. If all costs and depreciation are counted, that Acela and all other Northeast Corridor services lose lots of money." Elsewhere he has broken these numbers down to show on a per passenger basis the NEC loses more than long distance. A number I have seen is that Amtrak pays CSX less to run the Lake Shore from New York to Chicago than UPS pays to run one trailer the same distance. But all that centenary, real estate etc., costs a pretty penny. Long distance trains are a bargain compared to the NEC.
Taken on a passenger-by-passenger basis, trains cost taxpayers far less than cars, planes, motorcycles or rickshaws. The big difference, as National Corridor Initiative president and CEO James P. RePass noted in a recent interview, is that "Subsidies for airlines and highways are far less obvious than Amtrak's single line item.
The NEC does not publish depreciation numbers for the NEC, so it is not calculated, only operating profit or loss. Other non-owned track has no depreciation accrued to Amtrak. I would have to check the numbers, but since the per passenger mile loss for LD is much higher than the per passenger mile small profit for the NEC, it is unlikely "on a per passenger basis the NEC loses more than long distance." I really don't see the need for such concern about a strictly political component of Amtrak so minor in scope, that if it were d/c'd tomorrow wouldn't make a ripple in the shares of traffic on those legacy routes.
My county in Illinois, and those next to it as well, have NO public transportation, NONE, other than Amtrak, yet the people who live there still pay state income taxes that pays for public transportation in places like Chicago, or from there to Springfield. And you can be sure that downstate Illinois residents are very aware of that, and I am sure Iowa and other states are the same. Even though our area has less population than Chicago we feel as though we are entitled to public transportation and mobility just the same, and downstate residents let their congressman know that. I am confident that Amtrak long distance will continue if only for that reason.
Although Amtrak does not make the depreciation and interest allocations available to the public, at least in its monthly operating reports, several reasonable allocation scenarios for these items can be deduced.
Given the estimated life of Amtrak's assets, i.e. equipment, infrastructure, leasehold improvements, etc., it is plausible that approximately 80 per cent of the annual depreciation and interest charges are worn by the NEC, with a disproportionate amount of it being driven by the New Haven to Boston segment due to its relative recency of construction.
If my assumption is correct, that leaves approximately 20 per cent of the depreciation and interest to be allocated to the equipment associated with the long distance trains and the corridor trains, plus the the infrastructure owned by Amtrak in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut. Amtrak also has depreciation associated with the stations that it owns outside of the NEC as well as repair and maintenance facilities, e.g. Hialeah, FL, New Orleans, LA, Seattle, WA. Most of the depreciation and interest associated with these facilities would be allocated to the long distance trains, although some of it might be worn by the corridor trains. Without being able to examine Amtrak's property accounting records, it is impossible to say for sure how the depreciation is allocated.
Amtrak is billed by the hoist railroads over which it runs its corridor and long distance trains. The billings probably contain a depreciation and capitalized interest component, although it is likely to be very small.
Dwight: Illinois has more state-subsidized Amtrak routes than most other states in the US, and the number will only increase and service improve. The CHI-STL corridor is becoming semi-HSR, serving several metro areas outside Chicago. CHI-CHM-CDL has 3 trains in each direction, two subsidized by the state. There are two trains each way between Quincy and Chicago and places in between. The Chief covers Galesburg, as does the CZ. The Hawkeye between Chicago - Rockford -Galena -Dubuque is supposed to start up in 2014. I guess they are still studying Peoria and Quad Cities. That would seem to cover a great deal of the state besides Chicago. But it's worth noting the Chicago metro area (not including areas in Indiana or Wisconsin) has a population of 8,710,000 out of an Illinois population of ~12,870,000. If your county lacks public transport, that is an issue for your county boards.
The corridor is not there for downstate residents. Most of those who ride it live in Chicago, the three main stops are Bloomington (ISU) Springfield (State Capitol) and St. Louis. The Springfield riders mainly live in Chicago and commute to Springfield for their state jobs (my mom's cousin's husband is with the Illinois DOT and lives in Oak Park,and commutes to Springfield). Something like 80% of ISU students are from the suburbs of Chicago, SIU in Carbondale is roughly the same. Peoria and Rockford, the second and third largest cities, have no Amtrak service, Rockford will be getting it soon but we'll see how long that lasts. And I am not talking out of turn when I say downstate residents are mad about that and complain about paying for trains for Chicago, I heard it my whole life growing up. Okay, I have grown tired of this but, again, long distance will not be going away.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.