Gong back to steam rail transport

[dave1949]

Many of the Eastern US cities had trolley systems that reached out to the larger surrounding towns.

Then personal autos became attainable for many and we have progressed to finger gestures, cell phone yakkers, traffic jams, never-ending car payments and highway bond issues. Most of those "open roads" that beckoned to us in our youth are but a memory.

That's progress. :laughing:

 

[sseelhoff]

I enjoyed using the trains and light rail system when I lived in Dallas. It's a relaxing way to get places. Great opportunity to work or read while commuting from one place to another. I would love to take trains for travel, but the time cost just isn't worth it. To take a train to Florida from Texas, the route takes you to Chicago and Washington, D.C. and takes 3 days to complete. Seems terribly inefficient-especially when you consider that there is an Amtrak line that runs to the east coast directly through Dallas.

 

[Gary Fowler]

We thought about getting our mother in law a train ticket from Houston to Los Angles because she was a bit afraid of flight but due to cost and time decided a tranquilizer pill for her and the airfare was much better.
Wife and I took a train from London to Edinburg Scotland while working in London. It was cheap, quick and comfortable and we got to see a lot of the English and Scottish countryside in the bargain.

 

[3930dave]

I haven't read the material in detail, but I'm aware of the various accounts of what the big 3 got up to shutting down mass transit post WWII. At the time, many people were concentrated in cities, thus the demand for cars was not high. Suburbs meant increased car sales...... rest is history.

I had a general awareness of what happened over time, but was most struck by what I saw at a county museum near me. They have a restored train station, early 1900's, that was on the line south of here. In that old station they have an original map of Ontario, circa 1904. If you glance at this old map quickly, it looks pretty similar to a provincial map of today - then you release that the 1904 map is showing RR lines, not roads. The density and distribution of transport lines is strikingly similar to today.

I watched RR lines disappear as I was growing up, so I knew that there were more in the past. Until I saw that 1904 map I had't realized there were that many way back. Takes something like that to illustrate how important rail was at the time.

The only good rail commute story I know personally was a fellow I did business with a decade or so back. He was based in Montreal, but often came to Toronto on business. The train station in Montreal was easy for him to get to, and at Union Station in Toronto he just hopped a subway to get to his company's office 15 minutes away. He really enjoyed travelling that way, he could get a lot of work done on the train, and since the train mostly paralleled the 401 highway corridor he had excellent cell coverage the whole trip. But, that is an exception, and only worked because he was travelling between 2 major cities that are an easy day trip.

The logistical advantage rail usually has is that it is relatively easy to site a train station in the centre of a city. Not a viable strategy with today's planes/cities.

Time is a factor, but sometimes once you total the door-to-door times for air vs. alternates, the results can surprise. A co-worker who used to consult in Boston found that air vs. driving times Boston/Toronto were pretty much a wash, door-to-door.

Perhaps it's mostly the nostralgia, but you're right '1949, rail always seemed (and in my personal experience is) the more civilized way to travel.

Passenger routing hasn't been a priority for long haul rail here for a very long time. Some of the shorter routes are supported, and occasionally have pretty good pricing - I know the Ottawa/Toronto run is very popular.

It was long enough ago that I've forgotten the source (something like Fortune), but the private 1930's rail car article conveyed that it was only really doable if you did your banking in the Caymans.

Rgds, D.

 

[PhysAssist]

Hi Dave,

I agree with all you wrote, and in about 1984, I moved to the Boston, MA area to work, but commuted home every other week end to the Rochester, NY area. We had the choice of flying on the company dime, or driving with mileage reimbursement at a rate typical of the mid-eighties (the amount slips my mind).

We decided which to do based on person prefeence and weather, but often we found that we made it home within a few minutes, or the driving people got home earlier. It also paid better. The trip was roughly 600 miles each way.

I did however miss the chance to read and relax that was presented by flying, and by the long airport waits (though they were naught compared to now).

Thomas

 

[BigE_]

We like to boast we have a good light rail system here in the Portland Oregon area, but it still had a long ways to go.

My wife and I use it when we go to a hockey game, mainly because it is cheaper than parking downtown. We drive as close as we can and then take the light rail the last few miles. It still adds 30 minutes to our commute.

I could take it to the airport, but at 3.5 hours vs. the 50 minute drive...

The problem is that it stops for a couple of minutes every few blocks or even every block when downtown, and you pretty much have to go through downtown to go anywhere.

 

[3930dave]

I remember Brock Yates saying "If you have the time, fly. But if you want to get there quickly, drive". That comment came long after his Canonball Run days .

Unless you are crossing more than half the continent, or own your own jet, it is pretty surprising how close the times are door to door.

I do like to use rail when I can - often if I'm heading to downtown Toronto, I'll drive in to the end of the subway line. Technically an older subway line, but is generally considered to be a safe environment.

Toronto has a ways to go as well. Presently there is no passenger rail link between Pearson (YYZ, the main int'l airport) and downtown Toronto. Toronto likes to claim World Class (and there are many good things about the city), but probably looks rather provincial (from a rail standpoint) to many people from other major world cities.

Rgds, D.

 

[dmccarty]

I remember Brock Yates saying "If you have the time, fly. But if you want to get there quickly, drive". That comment came long after his Canonball Run days .

Unless you are crossing more than half the continent, or own your own jet, it is pretty surprising how close the times are door to door....

Rgds, D.

Years ago we decided to fly to Orlando, FLA instead of driving. The plane cost $1,200 vs gas to drive around $300. We had a very early flight to try to maximize our vacation time so we had a 0600-0700 flight. We had to be at the airport two ours before the flight, the drive to the airport is a good hour but add at least another hour for parking, riding the bus from the parking lot to the terminal, and extra time for unexpected events. Before we even got on the plane we had spent four hours. Flight time is about two hours, so after six hours, we are in Orlando. Takes another two hours to get our baggage, get on the bus, and arrive at the hotel. Total travel time is around eight hours....

With normal traffic, we can get to Orlando in 9-10 hours. Usually nine. Spring Break traffic is horrible and the trip at that time can take 12 hours. We took the flight at Spring Break so the plane flight saved us three hours, at best, but those three hours cost us a bit over $900! We were even MORE tired flying vs driving because the family could not sleep in the airport or the plane flight. If we had driven, they would have been able to nap and I would have gotten more sleep because we would not have had to get up so early to get to the airport. The return flight took longer to drive because we had a two hour flight delay, the flight back was very slow and low because of bad weather, and when we finally landed, lightning prevent us from connecting to the terminal. Then we had to wait for a bus to get to parking and we got soaked getting in the car. We got home at least two hours later than we would have if we had driven. We will NOT fly again. We knew about the timing issues but figured it would be an experience for the kids. Well it was an experience. The kids did excellent with the long flight and delays. It was the worst flight I have ever been on and I did a fair amount of flying years ago.

Security was just flat our rude and a PITA at both airports. I feel sorry for people who have to fly today. This was our first flight since September 11th, 2001 and it will be our last unless we absolutely have not other choice.

We looked at trains to get to Orlando as well as out west. Taking a train takes forever and we could drive faster.

Later,
Dan

 

[PhysAssist]

We also looked at trains from upstate NY to Orlando, but it was cost prohibitive, and having them take your car down with you is even more, AND limited to a very few terminals.

I love to visit Toronto because the subways are such an easy way to get around, and relatively clean compared to Boston, MA.

If I were inclimed to travel Europe, I think I would have to insist on going by train, just to see the landscape and take in the continent.

Thomas

 

[3930dave]

Security was just flat our rude and a PITA at both airports. I feel sorry for people who have to fly today. This was our first flight since September 11th, 2001 and it will be our last unless we absolutely have not other choice.

Later,
Dan

My only flight in that time frame was in 2011. While I have to admit to being happy with Finnair (Toronto/Stockholm and just Economy class), I too feel sorry for anyone regularily flying on business within N. America. I was flying for business up until the tech wreck of 2000, and it got old back then.

Canadian inititated flights tend to be so expensive that many people in Ontario have taken to flying out of Rochester, Buffalo, Detroit....

It's a bit of a haul from here, but I have a friend that regularily drives his family to Florida - way cheaper than flying 5 people to FL.

Rgds, D.