Vote early and vote often!

------------------
Trust God, love your neighbor, and never mistake opinion for truth.
-Mr. Toy

The Del Monte Club Car

quote:

---

Originally posted by vthokie:
...why on earth would anyone take coach on the train from New York to Miami and spend over 24 hours sitting on a train when for about the same price they could be there in a couple of hours on a plane?

---

That is a common question, but I think it ignores how long-distance trains really work. First off, it is obvious that at least some people find it practical to go the entire distance by train, because people actually do that. But one musn't forget that a "long distance" train does not require one to travel the entire distance like an airplane does.

Take the California Zephyr, for example. It serves 35 cities and towns. That makes for 595 different origin/destination city pairs. The average passenger trip length is a little over 1000 miles. Some travel farther, some less. This makes a long-haul train very versatile.

And, yea, you can get very cheap air fares between New York and Miami, but check the air fares to and from small towns along the train's route, if air service is even available. Those puddle jumper commuter flights are very expensive.

From my own airport in Monterey it is often cheaper, or at least competetive, for two people to take Amtrak first class from Monterey to Portland than to fly coach from Monterey to Portland. Amtrak coach fares are about half the air fare.

But I don't go to Portland, I go to Salem, which requires a bus ride from Portland airport. (Salem has very little air service). With Amtrak I can catch the train here in the evening and step off in downtown Salem the next afternoon. On the return, I catch the train late afternoon, and I'm home the following midday. It is so easy.

------------------
Trust God, love your neighbor, and never mistake opinion for truth.
-Mr. Toy

The Del Monte Club Car

Rail patronage can be increased from the management side by the following ways:

1. Increase speed of trains i.e., improve track standards as vehicular stocks are comparable to international standards.

2. Sleeper coaches in USA have an abnormally low persons/coach density which in turn increases the length of the train, requiring more loco power and this reflects in increased maintainance costs and high fares. Increase intercity trains with 3-4hr durations averaging the same speed of a car on the interstate, this should not be done to entice travellers from road but to make them feel that it's a better choice than driving.

3. It is impossible to run and maintain a huge amount of rolling stock to meet the above said standards of sleeper coches.

from the travellers side:

4. Folks(in USA!) are generally used to wider spaces and practically have zero tolerance towards a sleeper coach that has no partition with other travellers. Although long distance trains have seater coaches in them few commuters use it for the entire length of the journey with most of its use restricted to shorter lengths enroute.

5. This implies that people are not willing to compromise a reduce in comfort/privacy/speed for longer duration along with an added burden of exhorbitant fares.

6. Folks should not bother too much about four persons sharing a partition of four berths(2 upper, 2 lower).

7. On board service costs are high. We can move the food services inside the train to wayside stations and a request for food can be made from the train by the passenger from anyone of the oncoming stations(this is done in UK), but this system goes kaput when there are more passengers and fewer halts.

8. Folks can or possibily should include rail travel as one of the possibilities to reach their destination.

9. Although roads in US are much safer and the automobiles are exceptionally good, folks should also note that the same safety, comfort/food and speed can come at a much cheaper price per person in trains, but with a little compromise over space/privacy(Yes, Horse power and other aspects spent per person on a train is much much lesser than a car/bus).

8. Folks should understand that rail network in USA is neither obsolete nor tech deficient to be looked down upon.

9. Folks should understand the ease of pressure they would bring to the already overstreched oil resources.

10. Finally folks can persuade their elected representatives to improve rail travel in their state/county.

THANK YOU so much for reading this far.

vthokie and Mr. Toy... I agree with both of your apparently contradictory statements. First of all, for many travellers, the cost and time involved to move between major cities is best served by airlines where a high volume of customers can reduce the per passenger cost. For travel between smaller centers, where the quantity is much, much lower, the train provides a better alternative.

This is where, for common travel, I believe, the differentiation makes the most sense.

There are a number of other factors to consider and (again for the common traveller) these will come into play in some of the gray areas. Also, for some, time and cost take second place to comfort and convenience. On this Amtrak can be on either side of the equation - (comfort - yes, convenience - often not).

As a train enthusiast, I will usually choose Amtrak now that I have the money, but when I was a "poor" school-student I went by the cheapest mode possible. This was usually a "red-eye" flight between major centers.

Go to mapquest.com .... insert Webbers Falls, OK ... which is the site of the disaster ... Guess what??? US Highway 64 bridges the river between Webbers Falls and Gore ... a bypass of about 3 miles.

The diversion of road traffic to rail will be miniscule at best ... more likely non-existent.

John

quote:

---

Originally posted by jimmymac:
The closing of Interstate 40 at the Arkansas/Oklahoma state line will no doubt encourge more people to use the Texas Eagle and Heartland Flyer. Reports state that the bridge could be out for a year.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MPALMER:
There are instances when the train can be competitive, at least with driving.

---

Definitely competitive with driving, especially with overnight trips because you don't have the expense of motels, nor do you have to stop to sleep or eat. The cost per mile, even in a sleeper, is quite low compared to driving long distances. Trains are, after all, ground transportation, so it is not always appropriate to compare it to air travel. They are what they are and they do what they do quite well.

quote:

---

I plan to travel from LA to Sacramento in a couple of months, but I won't be taking the Coast Starlight (14 hours & a midnight arrival in Sac!). Instead I will use the San Joaquin/Capitol connection, which gets in a good 5-6 hour earlier. Unfortunately that requires a bus trip on the LA-Bakersfield leg, but I am able to do more of the trip in daylight hours.
Since the station is close to Sacramento's downtown, I will not need a rental car or taxi. That would not be the case if I flew in, as the airport is a few miles out of town.

MP

---

You point out one of the advantages of train travel (convenient stations) and one of rail's biggest deficiencies (lack of a coherent route structure). If we had even twice as many lines and greater frequencies it would be much more practical for everyone.

If the Coast Daylight had been up and running, as it would be now if California hadn't diverted billions to bail out PG&E, you would have an earlier train North. You would be able to connect from the Daylight to a Capitol train in San Jose and on to Sacramento.

The lack of a train between LA and Bakersfield almost certainly discourages many people from taking the San Joaquins to and from LA.

------------------
Trust God, love your neighbor, and never mistake opinion for truth.
-Mr. Toy

The Del Monte Club Car

1)I think most of us would agree with this as long as the funding was there.

2) With the distances involved in most of the U.S. considered to be a major obstacle, this is a very interesting question. Are there other corridors which would be worthy of a dedicated train in addition to the long distance ones? I can't think of any, but maybe someone else can.

3) I don't understand what you mean by this

4/5/6) Yes. What's your point?

7) This could work if trains were reliably on-time. There's little point in arranging for a meal to be ready at 6:00 p.m. for a train arriving at 11:00 p.m. I heard that the Santa Fe used to do this by arranging extended passenger stops at stations adjacent to a "Harvey House".

8) I agree. Unfortunately, most Americans don't even think of trains when making travel plans.

9) With the relatively cheap price of gas, this isn't much of a factor. Since the private car operates on the owner's schedule, its convenience takes precedence.

8#2, 9#2)The big question is how to get the public better informed/educated about this!

quote:

---

Originally posted by PullmanCo:
Jimmy, that's a pipe dream.

Go to mapquest.com .... insert Webbers Falls, OK ... which is the site of the disaster ... Guess what??? US Highway 64 bridges the river between Webbers Falls and Gore ... a bypass of about 3 miles.

The diversion of road traffic to rail will be miniscule at best ... more likely non-existent.

John

---

Don't underestimate the impact of the loss of a major road link. Although there may be alternate routes nearby the traffic congestion could prove to be a major pain to many drivers.

Even so, if there's a problem with the busses, I've seen the San Joaquin wait as long as 25 minutes for busses straggling in late. At worst you may be bumped to a later train--there are six daily NB trains out of Bakersfield. Just don't make the mistake trying to make the last connection of the day/evening. Even the airlines advise the same.

The station in Sacramento is just blocks north of Downtown and, what I like even more--right adjacent to Old Sacramento--something any tourist or business traveler MUST see. The station in Bakersfield is quite impressive as well, and it's right in the heart of Downtown. Many rail stations are more conveniently located than airports. Most metropolitan airports are located somewhere just beyond tim-buk-tu and kalamazoo (excuse the expression)and well outside of town. Consider youself lucky if there's local bus or shuttle service that runs more than once an hour.

I live in a medium size city with a small airport(which amounts to nothing more than a 10,000' long sidewalk, a few warehouses and a terminal the size of a convenient store)Good luck getting a competetive fare. Here's some examples:

Bakersfield - San Diego ONE ADULT ONE WAY 3 weeks ahead $352.50! This was off peak!
Amtrak costs me $60.00 ROUND TRIP! During peak season-walk up price.

Bakersfield - San Francisco ONE ADULT ROUND trip over this summer (Mid July)if I pay today $527.00!

I'm planning my fiance and mine honeymoon right now to San Francisco. Round Trip rail fair for the both of us will be only $174.00.
527 #?!$*&# dollars almost pays for the whole honeymoon with moderate accomadations in the heart of San Francisco!!!! Not to mention that the Airport in SF is almost 20 miles south of town and a $15.00 shuttle ride.

I suppose flying is o.k if you traveling between major cities Like, say Los Angeles and Chicago or New York. But, the airlines love us 'small market' folks so much they put us on little putt-putt planes that, I kid you not, it wouldn't take much of an imagination to picture the co-pilot somewhere outside behind the plane winding the plane up like a toy. Then they charge us fares that would burn holes in a Platinum Visa (pun intended)

No, Amtrak's not always the perfect way to travel, but for what it would cost to fly, you can pay for your whole vacation. I think I'll stick to the train, thank you.

Just FYI; if you don't mind leaving out of Los Angeles at 3:55a-the train out of Bakersfield will take you right to Sacramento-and this thruway bus has a little better track record for being on-time/early.

This doesn't mean I am for or against any mode of travel - it just notes some limitations. Where it is not inconvenient, I take the train!