Re: Schlimm on fear of flying, toward the top of this 2nd page (I forgot to hit the reply button):
Fear of flying is not necessarily irrational. While statistically safer than driving, unlike in driving you relinquish 100 percent of control, vs. 50 percent behind the wheel. In a given situation, I'd rather have 50 percent of control.
DPM used to say safety stats favored train over plane travel. Whether that is still true or not, if something happens on the rails, at least you're still on the ground (in more ways than one).
I'm sure one could be conditioned, by a psychologist or somebody else, to get over his fear of walking down a bad street in a worse part of town at night. It doesn't mean he should be.
CMStPnPBack to the Business Traveler though.... The problem is you presume you set the meeting times and can control what is available to your company via your travel agency which you are forced to book though. Stand by what I said earlier, very few large businesses are going to get a fare that low, it's unrealistic and if it exists, it is a one time anomoly for the dates given.
Cheaper fares are easy to obtain, even with only a few days advance warning. I was not referring to a consultant or outside contractor. I was referring to folks going to meetings at their regional or headquarters or the guy going to a trade show, where planning is done far in advance. Spending days on LD trains rather than a few hours on a plane is a non-starter. That's why very few business people have used trains outside the NEC and one or two other corridors in the past 50 years.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
JPS1 All the Dallas to Chicago fares are one way. They are for travel on October 5th, and they are the lowest Internet fares. According to Travelocity, American and United are quoting DFW to ORD fares ranging from $54.10 to $101.10 for October 5th. Planning ahead usually results in a better fare than the walk-up fare. Not every business person can plan several weeks in advance, but many can and do. Each situation is different. People who work for organizations with pay for performance systems, where the cost of travel is charged back to their department, have an incentive to keep costs low. One way to do that is through better planning, especially for discretionary travel.
All the Dallas to Chicago fares are one way. They are for travel on October 5th, and they are the lowest Internet fares.
According to Travelocity, American and United are quoting DFW to ORD fares ranging from $54.10 to $101.10 for October 5th.
Planning ahead usually results in a better fare than the walk-up fare. Not every business person can plan several weeks in advance, but many can and do. Each situation is different.
People who work for organizations with pay for performance systems, where the cost of travel is charged back to their department, have an incentive to keep costs low. One way to do that is through better planning, especially for discretionary travel.
I would use the airline websites for fare quotes, travelocity is frequently inaccurate and is secondarily updated compared with airline systems with current seat inventory which leads to problems as well sometimes.
Use of one way tickets are restricted under most Frequent Flyer rules. You'll find. If that was not the case you would find Business travelers using them to reverse the travel direction on seasonal routes that apply yield management for the cheaper fare..........so they have restrictions on the use of one way fares on most FF program rules (and the airlines have gotcha programs monitoring one way ticket usage) and most businessmen are not going to risk cancellation of FF membership to save money on airfare when the client is reimbursing in most cases. So you need to be real cautious with one way tickets and usage of them. If an airline sees a FF using a one way ticket........red flags go up.
schlimmHeck, if I were a business traveler from DFW to ORD this Tuesday, I could be put on a flight at 6:10 am -> 8:35 am; go to the scheduled meetings and fly back 8:50 pm -> 11:13 pm, all for $123 RT inc. taxes, etc. on coach. Sounds a lot better than 22 hours on a train, leaving Monday afternoon, getting to Chicago at 1:52 pm Tuesday. Maybe you could manage some business still on Tuesday, but likely you'd have to overnight in a hotel, conclude business Tuesday morning, catch the train at 1:45 pm, returning to Dallas on Wednesday at 11:30 in the morning. Three days vs. one; a lot more expense and two nights on a train. Even in a bedroom, my bed at home is far more comfortable. I doubt if many businesses would approve of such a transport for their employees and very few would ever choose it.
OK well first, I wasn't talking about the Texas Eagle as viable for business travel. I specifically mentioned Buffalo to Chicago then stated even that was not viable due to the lack of frequency of connections.
Back to the Business Traveler though....
The problem is you presume you set the meeting times and can control what is available to your company via your travel agency which you are forced to book though. Stand by what I said earlier, very few large businesses are going to get a fare that low, it's unrealistic and if it exists, it is a one time anomoly for the dates given. Average fare for DFW to ORD for business travel is $400 min RT, maybe $300 if your really lucky Additionally most clients will want you onsite for more than a single day if they are paying for airfare....even sales folks, min 3 days typically. Also the decision for you to be onsite for an initial meeting rarely happens with 2 weeks advance notice, usually 1 week is all you get. With recurring visits you might be able to snag the 2 week advance purchase.
daveklepper Further correction, I believe the Texas Eagle ran non-stop through Mineola, and the station I actually did use for Tyler was Troop, TX. Does that check out? Is it an Amtrak stop today?
Further correction, I believe the Texas Eagle ran non-stop through Mineola, and the station I actually did use for Tyler was Troop, TX. Does that check out? Is it an Amtrak stop today?
Johnny
JPS1 daveklepper Rather than give up Hope, I would add a regular scheduled van service to and from Tyler, which is a much larger community without rail service. I think such a service would double the riddership at Hope. A similar situation exists with the Cardinal at Prince for Frostberg. The closest Amtrak station to Tyler, TX is Mineola, TX, which is 25.7 miles away. Longview is 37.8 miles from Tyler; it is more than 150 miles to Hope. So there is no hope for Hope for Tyler people who want to catch the Eagle, unless they are hopelessly enamored of the idea of catching a train from Hope, which must be a last hope.
daveklepper Rather than give up Hope, I would add a regular scheduled van service to and from Tyler, which is a much larger community without rail service. I think such a service would double the riddership at Hope. A similar situation exists with the Cardinal at Prince for Frostberg.
Rather than give up Hope, I would add a regular scheduled van service to and from Tyler, which is a much larger community without rail service. I think such a service would double the riddership at Hope.
A similar situation exists with the Cardinal at Prince for Frostberg.
The closest Amtrak station to Tyler, TX is Mineola, TX, which is 25.7 miles away. Longview is 37.8 miles from Tyler; it is more than 150 miles to Hope.
So there is no hope for Hope for Tyler people who want to catch the Eagle, unless they are hopelessly enamored of the idea of catching a train from Hope, which must be a last hope.
There are people who cannot fly because of medical reasons, but can endure long train trips. Older people may have to use the facilities often, say once every hour. Disaster can occur when the seat-belt sign is lit and the need arises. There are other problems.
Philly Amtrak Fan You do realize there are plenty of people who either are afraid of or don't like to fly (I'm included in that group).
You do realize there are plenty of people who either are afraid of or don't like to fly (I'm included in that group).
As I said, those who have aviophobia. But rather than not travel or expect the government to provide for your trip, why not seek competent therapy with a clinical psychologist trained in treating specific phobias? Success is possible with evidence-based therapies, usually in six sessions.
CMStPnPThe airfare quoted above for a business traveler would be unrealistic. For one, departing from Dallas Love Field isolates you a lot from the airport network in this country and arriving at Midway in Chicago isolates you more as business traveler. Unless you own your own business your not ever going to get that travel segment by a large company unless all they do is fly Dallas to Chicago.
Heck, if I were a business traveler from DFW to ORD this Tuesday, I could be put on a flight at 6:10 am -> 8:35 am; go to the scheduled meetings and fly back 8:50 pm -> 11:13 pm, all for $123 RT inc. taxes, etc. on coach. Sounds a lot better than 22 hours on a train, leaving Monday afternoon, getting to Chicago at 1:52 pm Tuesday. Maybe you could manage some business still on Tuesday, but likely you'd have to overnight in a hotel, conclude business Tuesday morning, catch the train at 1:45 pm, returning to Dallas on Wednesday at 11:30 in the morning. Three days vs. one; a lot more expense and two nights on a train. Even in a bedroom, my bed at home is far more comfortable. I doubt if many businesses would approve of such a transport for their employees and very few would ever choose it.
Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII
schlimmEven if your business in Chicago is downtown, flying would save a lot of time. If it is in Chicago sububs, it would save more time. Factoring cost and being able to get a better sleep at home, it seems like a no-brainer for any business person, other than the rare railfan with time to waste. Or someone with aviophobia.
The airfare quoted above for a business traveler would be unrealistic. For one, departing from Dallas Love Field isolates you a lot from the airport network in this country and arriving at Midway in Chicago isolates you more as business traveler. Unless you own your own business your not ever going to get that travel segment by a large company unless all they do is fly Dallas to Chicago.
So the $55-$110 ticket is highly unrealistic for business travel and largely out of reach, lowest your going to get Dallas to Chicago is $400 RT advance purchase and higher for under two weeks purchase.....and routing will be DFW to O'Hare. Southwest has to offer the lower fares because Dallas Love Field is pretty isolated from the airport network in this country and once at Love Field you don't have a lot of choices for getting out of there like you do at DFW.
Also, I disagree on aviophobia. I would switch to LD trains if it is more convienient because i get sick of flying period (even when it is First Class). Some of the LD train segments are more convinent that flying. The Buffalo departure on Amtrak for Chicago is an example late evening boarding time and I wake up, time for breakfest and I get off the train in Chicago at a fairly decent time in the morning still. You can sleep on a sleeper on a train a lot better than in an airport or on a plane. So I subtract sleep time when making the train to plane comparison and include total travel time to terminals , wait time to board, etc. I could never make Buffalo to Chicago work unless I was visiting Wisconsin because of the LD connections out of Chicago were so bad and required an almost half day layover at CUS.
Also might surprise you to know that Amtrak is indeed on Business Travel options now but restricted to just the Northeast Corridor. So I can book Airline to Amtrak transfers when flying to and doing business in the Northeast. Yes, it's not an interline ticket and not a guaranteed connection but still can get it booked. So hence again why I argue, airlines should offer the same service their travel agencies do. It would make our transportation system more efficient.
Also have to keep in mind that most consultants travel with the unwritten rule they have until noon or 1 p.m. on Monday to arrive at a client and usually can depart a clients site around noon on a Friday to account for travel. Now some consulting companies want you to depart Sunday night for clients site and depart clients site around COB on a Friday.........I never work for those consulting companies as they usually have crappy benefits and treat employees like crap in other areas. If I fly out on a Sunday night, I better be headed back by Friday early morning to compensate. Some sales people are the same way with their travel flexibility though I have seen them abused as well. Depends on the company.
JPS1The distance on Amtrak is 991 miles. Travel time is 22 hours and 12 minutes. The lowest coach fare is $102. Does not include meals. The lowest first class fare is $372. Includes meals. Does not include cost of getting to and from the railroad stations, parking, etc. Typical flying time from Dallas to Chicago is 2 hours and 5 minutes. The lowest fare on Southwest Airlines, which has six morning flights from Dallas to Chicago, ranges from $55 to $110. Does not include meals, cost of getting to and from the airports, parking, etc.
Even if your business in Chicago is downtown, flying would save a lot of time. If it is in Chicago sububs, it would save more time. Factoring cost and being able to get a better sleep at home, it seems like a no-brainer for any business person, other than the rare railfan with time to waste. Or someone with aviophobia.
CMStPnP ... Car trip to Wisconsin 16-17 hours from my Driveway, Texas Eagle from Dallas 22 hours. So if I am deciding between the car and train. Amtrak loses big time with the schedule padding. The truth is that Amtrak on this route just train moving time is probably closer to 17 hours than 22 hours and probably even less than 17 hours......rough guess. I would bet the Texas Eagle beats the auto travel time from Dallas to Chicago. ....
...
Car trip to Wisconsin 16-17 hours from my Driveway, Texas Eagle from Dallas 22 hours. So if I am deciding between the car and train. Amtrak loses big time with the schedule padding. The truth is that Amtrak on this route just train moving time is probably closer to 17 hours than 22 hours and probably even less than 17 hours......rough guess. I would bet the Texas Eagle beats the auto travel time from Dallas to Chicago.
....
But, if you are going alone, aren't you comparing 16-17 hours of intensity behind the wheel (at least until true self-driving cars become a reality!), to 22 hours wherin you can read, sleep, whatever. And you don't say whether the 16-17 hours include meal stops. And few people I know would drive straight through for that long, without a sleep stop.
By my reckoning, padding or no, Amtrak wouldn't lose on scheduling.
On the other hand, I agree that travel times do matter, at any length of time or distance.
That was my point in writing this thread. At some point time matters in selecting the train, just as it does the bus. Competitively the Texas Eagle is roughly only 2-4 hours faster than Greyhound if you compare schedules between Dallas and Chicago. If most of the padding was removed and Amtrak got a decent agreement with UP RR on run times, Amtrak would be more competitive as a travel option among a portfolio of travel options including the car and the bus.
And I have to disagree that on LD trains end point to end point travel times do not matter. Typically "how long does a train take?" is the first question that pops into someones head and if the car is comparable or roughly comparable it will be the chosen mode in a lot of cases.
lcar4000Speaking of the Texas Eagle, I was planning a trip to San Antonio from Springfield IL. The schedule seems to indicate it takes the train almost three hours to traverse the 63 miles between San Marcos and San Antonio. Is this possible, or am I reading the schedule wrong? I thought perhaps the times represent padding on the part of Amtrak, as a way to decrease the number of late runs. To me, three hours to go 63 miles is unacceptable.
The schedule is bloated. If Number 21 leaves San Marcos on time, more often than not, it will go into San Antonio 1 to 1.5 hours early, which creates a problem for the passengers and anyone who may be meeting them.
Do those meeting a passenger show up early on the notion that the train will be early and possibly wait for an hour or more, or do the passengers arrive early and have to wait an hour or more for their ride?
One only has to hang around the San Antonio Amtrak station at night one time to realize that it is not a fun place. I have taken the Eagle to San Antonio several times for meetings the next day before flying back to west Texas.
The schedule appears to have been put together by an Amtrak bureaucrat who sits in a windowless cubicle, eats peanut butter and banana sandwiches for lunch, and has never ridden the Texas Eagle or been to San Antonio.
I am not sure how long it takes to get through the various interlockings in San Antonio, but I do not doubt that the padding allows for such. I was asleep by the time we came into San Antonio, (both times I went that way) so I have no real answer.
San Antonio is a through station for the Sunset Limited, but is more or less a stub station for the Texas Eagle.
The Texas Eagle has so much fat in its schedule that it probably can add several more stops and not have them impact its end-point on-time performance.
If Number 21 departs Dallas on-time it arrives in Fort Worth around 12:30 to 12:45 p.m. However, it is not scheduled out of Fort Worth until 2:10 p.m., which means it sits in Fort Worth for more than an hour. Moreover, if Number 21 departs Austin on-time, it usually goes into San Antonio an hour ahead of schedule.
At that distance, I don't think that speed is going to make that much of a difference. If it was an issue, people would fly and save even more time.
Interesting to note that the Southwest Chief is the fastest train to the West Coast time and distancewise from Chicago as well. I wonder if that makes a difference as well on where end point to end point ranks in number of riders as a percentage. I'd take the SWC over the CZ because of the speed. Don't really care about scenery all that much if an alternate train is significantly faster. They could tighten the schedule of the SWC I feel and make it even faster if they had the money.
Philly Amtrak Fan Doesn't mean there aren't a significant number that do. https://www.narprail.org/site/assets/files/1038/trains_2015.pdf The Southwest Chief had a ridership of 362,999 in 2015. While most do not go end point to end point, 14.9% traveled over 2000 miles (approx. 54,000 passengers). The second most popular city pair is Chicago to LA (behind Chicago to Kansas City). Similarly, the California Zephyr had 371,089 with 11.8% over 2000 miles (over 40,000). And most of these endpoint to endpoint pairs bring in huge revenue. Ideally you'd be able to travel from coast to coast without changing trains but one change of trains is still decent. I certainly would not want to go from Philly to LA having to change trains more than 2 times and possibly missing a connection and getting stranded. I don't think the concept of long distance travel is a thing of the past. I think certain trains should be a thing of the past and other trains that were a thing of the past should be brought back to life.
Doesn't mean there aren't a significant number that do.
https://www.narprail.org/site/assets/files/1038/trains_2015.pdf
The Southwest Chief had a ridership of 362,999 in 2015. While most do not go end point to end point, 14.9% traveled over 2000 miles (approx. 54,000 passengers). The second most popular city pair is Chicago to LA (behind Chicago to Kansas City). Similarly, the California Zephyr had 371,089 with 11.8% over 2000 miles (over 40,000). And most of these endpoint to endpoint pairs bring in huge revenue.
Ideally you'd be able to travel from coast to coast without changing trains but one change of trains is still decent. I certainly would not want to go from Philly to LA having to change trains more than 2 times and possibly missing a connection and getting stranded.
I don't think the concept of long distance travel is a thing of the past. I think certain trains should be a thing of the past and other trains that were a thing of the past should be brought back to life.
Thanks for some data, even if it is from a group with an agenda. It does show (as BaltACD says) that on two trains the large majority of LD passengers in the West are not endpoint to endpoint.
schlimm So perhaps if trains like the Sunset and Eagle were segmented (shorter corridors, such as StL-DFW or SA) better arrival times could be managed. And if the demand were there, daily frequency could also be increased.
Segmenting sounds good on paper, maybe. When I ride the Texas Eagle, I don't however see the majority of passengers on the train get off at St Louis (in either direction). So if most passengers are actually going past St Louis, then why force a change of trains on them?
Earlier this year when I was going from Little Rock to Los Angeles, I had choices with Amtrak:
I could take the Texas Eagle to St Louis, River Runner to Kansas City and Southwest Chief to Los Angeles
or one-seat ride from Little Rock to Los Angeles on the Texas Eagle/Sunset Limited
or Texas Eagle to San Antonio, there physically changing trains to Sunset Limited.
Guess what I chose? Right, the one-seat ride.
schlimm CMStPnP Amtrak is stuck in the past. I hope someone can find the data source for the contention that most Western LD passengers do NOT ride endpoint to endpoint. If that is true, then a logical reconfiguration would make enough sense that even Amtrak could recognize the implications.
CMStPnP
Amtrak is stuck in the past. I hope someone can find the data source for the contention that most Western LD passengers do NOT ride endpoint to endpoint. If that is true, then a logical reconfiguration would make enough sense that even Amtrak could recognize the implications.
I suspect if you delve into the ridership of most all Amtrak trains you will find most ridership is not end point to end point. End point to intermediate point, intermediate point to intermediate point or intermediate point to end point are the options. Transportation for individuals has to accomidate the many variations. The days of a majority of users going from end point to end point by train are long gone.
In my experience of riding trains I can only remember two occurences of riding a train end point to end point - The Panama Limted from Chicago to New Orleans and the Gulf Wind from New Orleans to Jacksonville. All other uses of rail passenger service in my lifetime has involved movement to, from or between intermediate points.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.