Amtrak not easy

RobertN · Oct 23, 2009

Amtrak sure is not easy...

My mother in law wants to go see her sister in Dallas/Fort Worth. So, I'm looking Sacramento, Ca to Dallas.

On one route, it is a bus from Sacramento to Stockton(hour away), then train to Bakersfield, then bus to LA. Then a train to Dallas. Another route has as many changes, but takes thru Kansas and then south.

It is hard for her to fly. But she could take the train easily enough. Except all the transfers. And, buses. This is a train trip, not bus trip.

dave1949 · Oct 23, 2009

RobertN said:
Amtrak sure is not easy...

My mother in law wants to go see her sister in Dallas/Fort Worth. So, I'm looking Sacramento, Ca to Dallas.

On one route, it is a bus from Sacramento to Stockton(hour away), then train to Bakersfield, then bus to LA. Then a train to Dallas. Another route has as many changes, but takes thru Kansas and then south.

It is hard for her to fly. But she could take the train easily enough. Except all the transfers. And, buses. This is a train trip, not bus trip.

It is horrible. I would love to be able to have my Mom get on a train in Toledo, OH and get off in Portland, ME. It's much the same as your experience and too much hassle for an arthritic 83 yr old trying to drag even light luggage around.

I wish we could build up decent train service over the next 20 yrs, before I'm 80-something

Dave.

LBrown59 · Oct 23, 2009

dave1949 said:
It is horrible. I would love to be able to have my Mom get on a train in Toledo, OH and get off in Portland, ME. It's much the same as your experience and too much hassle for an arthritic 83 yr old trying to drag even light luggage around.

I wish we could build up decent train service over the next 20 yrs, before I'm 80-something
Dave.

To bad you don't live here in SE Ohio.It would only be about a 250 to 300 mile trip for her to come visit you

dave1949 · Oct 23, 2009

LBrown59 said:
To bad you don't live here in SE Ohio.It would only be about a 250 to 300 mile trip for her to come visit you

That's true LB, just didn't work out that way. She holds it against me too

Dave.

two_bit_score · Oct 23, 2009

And flying is getting to be just as bad with all the hassle of screening, boarding, people with too big/many carry ons, cramped seats, etc.

randy41 · Oct 23, 2009

I think flying is the only way or else on a long trip you spend most of your time on the train. My wife took the train (she hates to fly) to Chicago from here (Southwest VA). I had to drive her to an amtrak station in WV about 2 1/2 hours away. Then she was on the train for like 17 hours. Then since Amtrak shares the tracks with the freight trains, the freight trains get the right of way so delays are very common.
So even though flying can be difficult for some in many cases its the only way that makes any sense. The next time she went I insisted that she fly.

dave1949 · Oct 23, 2009

Can you imagine how the airlines would have to clean up their act if they had to compete with a decent rail system?

We subsidize air travel big time. Every major airport has tax-free bonds issued by the millions. I'm not sure what, if anything, airlines pay through ticket sales to support the FAA, air controllers, all the navigation satelites, radio, radar, etc.

Dave.

Tig · Oct 23, 2009

I'm a fan of the train, but I agree that it is not always convenient. I'd like to take the train to my US assignments but it's more than twice the time that is takes to drive.
Ironically I live near a main line and there is only one transfer required. It's just a much longer route. The return trip is worse. It requires an overnight stay 4 hours from my home.

MicroPilot · Oct 24, 2009

When I looked into train travel recently it was just as expensive as air travel, but took way longer.

Why would anyone want to pay the same amount of money as a 2 hour flight for a 2 day train trip?

Dmace · Oct 24, 2009

RobertN said:
My mother in law wants to go see her sister in Dallas/Fort Worth. So, I'm looking Sacramento, Ca to Dallas.

How about taking Greyhound? There are no change-overs or transfers as it's a direct route. I just did a search and a bus leaving Sacramento, CA and arriving in Dallas, TX (there's multiple Dallas locations) is 1 day 14 hours and 50 mins (1881 miles) long and a round trip leaving Nov. 1st and returning Nov. 8 would cost $267.07. It seems like a pretty low cost alternative.

I have never taken such a long bus ride so can't comment on the comfort of being on a bus that long but I have taken Greyhound to the airport (2 hrs) and it was very comfortable and relaxing. With a laptop and the provided Wi-Fi on board, I could easily waste a day and a half reading TBN and watching Youtube videos.

dave1949 · Oct 24, 2009

MicroPilot said:
When I looked into train travel recently it was just as expensive as air travel, but took way longer.

Why would anyone want to pay the same amount of money as a 2 hour flight for a 2 day train trip?

A plane will always beat a train on long trips - especially over water

Rail service done correctly can be just as fast, door-to-door, as air travel on short to medium trips. A train can travel into the center of a metropolitan area. Trains are much less delayed by weather. Train stations are smaller and quieter than airports and can be placed where an airport is impossible, even underground.

You can breathe cleaner air and watch the scenery too

We need a comprehensive public transportation system that works, trains should be part of that. Comparing Amtrak as it is now, to air travel, isn't an apples to apples comparison.
Dave.

buckeyefarmer · Oct 29, 2009

No, amtrak is not easy, nor that cheap. I do enjoy it though for trips up the East coast.

tallyho8 · Oct 30, 2009

Amtrak seems to be proof that an entity can spend as much money as they can get the government to give them. Last week Amtrak announced that last year was it's second best year in history and yet they have received over $1,400,000,000 in subsidies so far this year and they keep increasing. Their expenses are unbelievable as they pay workers in the snack bar $24 an hour and the government demands that if they lay anyone off, they have to pay them severance pay for up to 6 years.

I would hate to see our passenger train system die, but just throwing more money at it each year won't improve it. Only 3 of it's 44 lines have ever turned a profit.

dave1949 · Oct 30, 2009

tallyho8 said:
Amtrak seems to be proof that an entity can spend as much money as they can get the government to give them. Last week Amtrak announced that last year was it's second best year in history and yet they have received over $1,400,000,000 in subsidies so far this year and they keep increasing. Their expenses are unbelievable as they pay workers in the snack bar $24 an hour and the government demands that if they lay anyone off, they have to pay them severance pay for up to 6 years.

I would hate to see our passenger train system die, but just throwing more money at it each year won't improve it. Only 3 of it's 44 lines have ever turned a profit.

Good Morning Tallyho8,

I am not 100% certain on this, but I don't think there is a rail system anywhere in the world that doesn't get subsidized by government. Highways, ports and airports are also heavily subsidized by tax dollars. To pick out Amtrak because it is subsidized isn't making the correct comparison IMHO. I am sure there are excesses in Amtrak and a lack of good service - just as there are in highway projects, harbor pilots, etc. I'm still rooting for rail done right

Dave.

turbo36 · Oct 30, 2009

tallyho8 said:
Amtrak seems to be proof that an entity can spend as much money as they can get the government to give them. Last week Amtrak announced that last year was it's second best year in history and yet they have received over $1,400,000,000 in subsidies so far this year and they keep increasing. Their expenses are unbelievable as they pay workers in the snack bar $24 an hour and the government demands that if they lay anyone off, they have to pay them severance pay for up to 6 years.

I would hate to see our passenger train system die, but just throwing more money at it each year won't improve it. Only 3 of it's 44 lines have ever turned a profit.

You been listening to FOX TV again? I'd like to see proof of this.

tallyho8 · Oct 30, 2009

turbo36 said:
You been listening to FOX TV again? I'd like to see proof of this.

If you want proof, just google "amtrak subsidies". There is a multitude of info on this subject.

The only Amtraks to ever make a profit were 4 in the Northeast. The one losing the most is the one from New Orleans to Los Angeles.

I love trains and wish they could improve. I would love to take one through the Rockies on one of the most scenic routes.

hitekcountry · Oct 30, 2009

When it comes to the passenger train system the US is just about a third world country. If the price of gas goes up as much as some are predicting, we may soon see a massive shift to rail travel.

dave1949 · Oct 30, 2009

hitekcountry said:
When it comes to the passenger train system the US is just about a third world country.

When I lived in Germany, I could take a cab or local bus to the train station, change trains once and get off in the basement of the Frankfurt airport. Take the escalator up to the check-in counter. The trains ran on schedule to within a minute. I could take a train to Paris, get off at the North Station, cross the street and enter the Paris Metro. From there I could go literally anywhere in Paris. Just some examples.

One thing about mass transit in the US, we lack the population density in many areas to make it efficient. Another is, mass transit gets no respect in planning. If you travel through Boston on Amtrak, you have to take a shuttle bus from the north station to the south station, the train doesn't connect through the city. They did manage to spend umpteen billions to route I-93 underground - The Big Dig. This is an example of what I mean by very unequal subidies. We have highway-itis. LA, Cal. is living proof you can't pave your way out of a mass transit problem.
Dave.

weldingisfun · Oct 31, 2009

Any company that does not have to worry about being profitable will never be concerned about customer service, convenience or effiency. AMTRAK and the USPS are perfect examples.

tallyho8 · Oct 31, 2009

weldingisfun said:
Any company that does not have to worry about being profitable will never be concerned about customer service, convenience or effiency. AMTRAK and the USPS are perfect examples.

I have always had much better service from USPS than from UPS or Fed Ex and I have heard that it is one of the top mail delivery systems in the world. It could be that I am wrong.