I rode Amtrak yesterday from Santa Ana to Martinez- a Surfliner to LA, the bus to Bakersfield and then the San Joaquin to Martinez, which is about 40 minutes short of Oakland and the station nearest to Sonoma county.
The Surfliner was a disappointment being too much like a utilitarian commuter train. The cars were well worn and in need of a thorough cleaning, as distinct from just being swept clean. The snack bar, which was located on the lower level, was unattractive with plastic crates and cardboard boxes everywhere. A little pride and professionalism on the part of the attendant would have helped a lot.
The bus/train connection was seamless and both buses to Bakersfield were full. That said, a bus is a bus.
The San Jaoquin was a very pleasant surprise. Though the cars didn't appear to have been refurbished recently, they were as clean and buttoned up as the Surfliner was dirty and sloppy. The us of off-white ceilings and overhead baggage compartments makes for a lighter, seemingly more sun filled environment vs a Superliner. It works!
The crew was friendly and seemed to have been through "deport yourself professionally" training- something badly needed throughout the Amtrak system. The only problem was the conductor's loud radio. Why must their back pockets always talk so loudly?
The snack/lounge car was the most pleasant surprise. The entire upper level is given over to the snack bar (perhaps 20 feet) and a creative arrangement of seating and tables. There are tables for one, two and four. Some are turned such that the person faces the window directly. The food was not typical Amtrak cafe fare, which I regard as drek. I had a chicken pasta dinner that was two cuts above regular dining car and diner lite fare. The salad was a 21st century spring mix and tomatoes affair- no iceberg lettuce in sight. I'd look for better in a restaurant, but it was excellent by Amtrak standards and fairly priced at $9.
The train moved along at a rapid clip so the ride lacked the tedious quality of the Coast Starlight. Sadly, the central valley has none of the coast's scenic beauty.
With this trip I have now ridden every Amtrak route, except for the mid-west corridor routes. Someone at Amtrak California had their thinking cap on when the conceived the San Jaoquin service.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
One of the nice things about the San Joaquin trains is riding on a fairly fast railroad that know how to keep things moving. My one round trip including pulling into a siding and after about being stopped about two minutes the conductor coming on the PA and saying something to the effect, "the reason we are moving at such blazing speed is that we are waiting for train (forgot number) to get here." Amtrak in the other direction. We sat fro near 10 minutes. We began moving almost immediately after the train went by us. The main message I got was that this stop and wait was a rare enough event to be worth commenting on.
Posted by notelvis (Member # 3071) on :
I'm ready for a ride on the San Joaquin. Right now!
Posted by HopefulRailUser (Member # 4513) on :
And I am taking it on October 29th, LAX all the way to SAC using the bus/train/bus method. Coming home will be train/bus only. Can't wait and I learned about this route vs. the CS here from you great folks. It's six hours less time too. Question about the Quik-Trak machine. Since Amtrak no longer will mail me my tickets for free I will pick them up at LAX. Will this machine spew out 10 tickets, one for each leg of this trip and for myself and my spouse? Or will I have to get each leg as I go?
Posted by City of Miami (Member # 2922) on :
It will give you the entire reservation at once. It will say please wait for 10 tickets, or whatever number is appropriate.
Posted by dilly (Member # 1427) on :
I took my first trip on the San Joaquins two weeks ago, from Emeryville to Merced (I spent a few days at Yosemite National Park) and then from Merced to Los Angeles via Bakersfield.
Since it's the only Amtrak route I'd never traveled on apart from the Sunset Limited, I'd been looking forward to the trip, as I've always been quite impressed by the extremely varied scenery -- natural and man-made -- on the Coast Starlight.
Unfortunately, I found the San Joaquins to be a leading contender for the title of Amtrak's Most Visually Boring Route -- little more than hour after hour of flat-as-a-tabletop farmland and a bland mix of upscale and working class residential areas. Frankly, it makes even the long hours of Montana nothingness on the Empire Builder seem like a feast for the eyes.
If you're a scenery fan, the only interesting stretches are the brief waterside run near Emeryville and the bus ride from Bakersfield to L.A. -- especially if your train arrives two hours late (as mine did) and your highway excursion through the mountains occurs at sunset.
With that said, the train was very clean. I also found the design of the cafe car far more appealing than that of the Superliners, Amfleets, and Horizons used elsewhere in the system.
But if you're trying to decide whether the San Joaquins or Coast Starlight will give you a bigger visual bang for your buck? Stick with the coastal route.
----------------
Posted by 20thCenturyLimited (Member # 1108) on :
quote:Originally posted by dilly: I took my first trip on the San Joaquins two weeks ago, from Emeryville to Merced (I spent a few days at Yosemite) and then from Merced to Los Angeles via Bakersfield.
Since it's the only Amtrak route I'd never traveled on apart from the Sunset Limited, I'd been looking forward to the trip, as I've always been quite impressed by the extremely varied scenery -- natural and man-made -- on the Coast Starlight.
Unfortunately, I found the San Joaquins to be a leading contender for the title of Amtrak's Most Visually Boring Route -- little more than hour after hour of flat-as-a-tabletop farmland and a bland mix of upscale and working class residential areas. Frankly, it makes even the long hours of Montana nothingness on the Empire Builder seem like a feast for the eyes.
If you're a scenery fan, the only interesting stretches are the brief waterside run near Emeryville and the bus ride from Bakersfield to L.A. -- especially if your train arrived two hours late (as mine did) and your bus ride through the mountains occurs at sunset.
With that said, the train was very clean. I also found the design of the cafe car far more appealing than that of the Superliners, Amfleets, and Horizons used elsewhere in the system.
But if you're trying to decide whether the San Joaquins or Coast Starlight will give you a bigger visual bang for your buck? Stick with the coastal route.
----------------
I've taken the San Joaquin route many times, as I used to live in Los Angeles and would travel to Sacramento to visit family. The train is pretty well run, overall. I do lament the loss of the tray meal table service. As for the scenery, It's really not an issue for me as the San Joaquin's to me are for transportation, and not sight seeing. If you merely want to ride the train for sight seeing purposes, then I would suggest the Coast Route as well. However, this train is very busy and popular with people who need transportation up and down California's central valley. It servers it's purpose quite well.
Posted by RRRICH (Member # 1418) on :
I for one do NOT find the scenery aboard the San Joaquin that "boring." I believe it is more scenic than say, the miles and miles and miles of nothing but trees and kudzu along the tracks on the Silver Service/Crescent routes in the East and SE. After all, the San Joaquin Valley is "America's salad bowl."
Posted by Kiernan (Member # 3828) on :
The scenery along the San Joaquin route has always amazed me. South of Fresno I remember seeing the acres and acres of grapes on butcher paper slowly turning into raisins between the rows of grape vines. For the first time I realized why Sun Maid raisins are called Sun Maid. If you ride the San Joaquin several times during the year you can see the entire sweep of agriculture in the Central Valley. It's fun to ride through the Delta and see the small boat harbors and the canals. Although the Stockton sewage evaporation ponds leave a little to be desired. Through Carquinez Straight you can see the bridges. It's a fun ride.
Posted by dmwnc1959 (Member # 2803) on :
quote: I for one do NOT find the scenery aboard the San Joaquin that "boring." I believe it is more scenic than say, the miles and miles and miles of nothing but trees and kudzu along the tracks on the Silver Service/Crescent routes in the East and SE.
Apart from the strict definition of the word, "scenic" is in the eye of the beholder. Being born, and mostly raised in the South (Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia), I like the routes of the Silver Service and Crescent; miles of kudzu, the very small Southern-belle towns and Mayberry-communities, swamps, the occasional river bridge, folks back-yards, junk-yards, and a bit of Americana specific for that region thrown in for good measure are its 'own' scenery... a snapshot of the history, folklore, and geography of the South.
Posted by dilly (Member # 1427) on :
quote:Originally posted by RRRICH: I for one do NOT find the scenery aboard the San Joaquin that "boring." I believe it is more scenic than say, the miles and miles and miles of nothing but trees and kudzu along the tracks on the Silver Service/Crescent routes in the East and SE. After all, the San Joaquin Valley is "America's salad bowl."
Kudzu. . . lettuce. . . too many miles filled with either of them make for a monotonous trip (unless, of course, you're a kudzu or lettuce fan). Keep in mind that I wrote that the San Joaquin route was a leading contender -- but not the only contender -- for the reigning title of Amtrak's most visually unremarkable route.
I typically spend all my time on a train simply looking out the window. I don't read while traveling. I don't watch DVD movies. I don't snooze during the day. I don't hang out in the cafe car, drinking with strangers.
I simply look out the window, taking it all in, for hours and hours on end. It's why I take the train, whether I'm traveling between Chicago and the San Francisco Bay Area on the California Zephyr, or between New York and Baltimore along the NEC.
That's why the perfect train trip, for me, contains a mix: natural scenery (mountains, lakes, rivers, rolling countryside, whatever); small towns that look pretty much as they did a century ago; abandoned trackside factories, mills, and railyards; gloomy industrial-era cities that have fallen on hard times; and all those backyards filled with "stuff" that Americans refuse to throw out.
Granted, Amtrak isn't responsible for the scenery. Its trains are, first and foremost, designed simply as a means to travel between Point A and Point B. But for me, six solid hours of flat, empty California fields (with the monotony broken only by the occasional pseudo-Spanish condominium development) just doesn't do it.
So once again, if anyone looking for a scenic travel experience is wondering whether to take one of the San Joaquin trains or the Coast Starlight, I'd suggest that they choose the latter.
------------------
Posted by 20thCenturyLimited (Member # 1108) on :
quote:Originally posted by dilly: [QUOTE] Its trains are, first and foremost, designed simply as a means to travel between Point A and Point B.
Exactly! If it were for any other reason, I'd support dismantiling or ending government funding for Amtrak as well. Scenery is a bonus.
Posted by TwinStarRocket (Member # 2142) on :
I think of trains as traveling from point A to point Z with an opportunity to see everything in between, ...and with the possible risk of being stuck in H for a long time especially if UP is involved. That is why it is an adventure.
How does Mr. 20thCenturyLimited feel about government funding for National Parks? The point is that many people travel for the sake of traveling and sightseeing. The tourism industry depends on it. Governments also fund promotion of tourism. How our tax dollars are spent determine which options we have available to do that. Every option involves huge amounts of government funding. Statistics show people will choose the rail option whenever the opportunity is there. Otherwise the LD's would not run at near capacity during the tourist season, while trains in the NEC run with much lower load factors than LD's.
I want at least some of my tax dollars spent improving my quality of life. National Parks and Amtrak do that for me.
Posted by 20thCenturyLimited (Member # 1108) on :
quote:Originally posted by TwinStarRocket: I think of trains as traveling from point A to point Z with an opportunity to see everything in between, ...and with the possible risk of being stuck in H for a long time especially if UP is involved. That is why it is an adventure.
How does Mr. 20thCenturyLimited feel about government funding for National Parks? The point is that many people travel for the sake of traveling and sightseeing. The tourism industry depends on it. Governments also fund promotion of tourism. How our tax dollars are spent determine which options we have available to do that. Every option involves huge amounts of government funding. Statistics show people will choose the rail option whenever the opportunity is there. Otherwise the LD's would not run at near capacity during the tourist season, while trains in the NEC run with much lower load factors than LD's.
I want at least some of my tax dollars spent improving my quality of life. National Parks and Amtrak do that for me.
National Parks are another issue, whose first purpose is really the important issue of *conservation*.
*If* Amtrak was being run as a tourist train system (like AOE, for example) and not pure transportation, it would have no purpose whatsoever being funded by the Federal Government.
You miss the point entirely.
Posted by dmwnc1959 (Member # 2803) on :
quote:abandoned trackside factories, mills, and railyards; gloomy industrial-era cities that have fallen on hard times
The Capital Limited through northwestern Ohio and northern Indiana were remarkable for this. Depressing yet mesmerizing at the same time.
Posted by zephyr (Member # 1651) on :
quote:Originally posted by 20thCenturyLimited: *If* Amtrak was being run as a tourist train system (like AOE, for example) and not pure transportation, it would have no purpose whatsoever being funded by the Federal Government.
You miss the point entirely.
I strongly, totally disagree. You, sir, are the one who is missing the point.
As Mr. Rocket, I want the government to "...enhance my quality of life." That's the undisputable responsibility of the government, is it not? But let's think beyond trains and a bit outside the box, shall we?
I, for one, would like to see my tax dollars subsidize oceanic travel to Hawaii. Below cost, with amenities at least equal to those rip-off cruise lines. Call it the Guv-Boat.
And I'm kind of into stagecoaches. I'd like to see the government offer me the opportunity to take a stagecoach from where I live in the High Sierra's to, say, San Francisco. It would be scenic, and so environmentally friendly.
And what about blimps? Wow, just slowly floating over the terrain to my destination, and with a Parlour-like lounge to assure I won't be able to pass a sobriety test when I get there. So quality-of-life-enhancing. So cool. Yeh-the government should fund that too.
And let's talk riverboats. Chico (the closest flat-lander town to my environs) has a local landmark called Chico Landing (clever name, eh?). Riverboats used to pick up passengers there for passage to Baghdad by the Bay and Points Between. Why not now? Why doesn't the government subsidize that? Hey, the infrastructure is already there. Cost would be just a few million, give or take. And you talk about enhancing my quality of life? Wow, the views of the riparian forests would be so great! And so unbelievably environmentally friendly.
No sirree, Mr. Limited, Mr. Rocket is on to something here. I suggest you put your thinkin'-cap on. Right here and now.
Posted by 20thCenturyLimited (Member # 1108) on :
quote:Originally posted by zephyr:
quote:Originally posted by 20thCenturyLimited: *If* Amtrak was being run as a tourist train system (like AOE, for example) and not pure transportation, it would have no purpose whatsoever being funded by the Federal Government.
You miss the point entirely.
I strongly, totally disagree.
As Mr. Rocket, I want the government to "...enhance my quality of life." I, for one, would like to see my tax dollars subsidize oceanic travel to Hawaii. Below cost, with amenities at least equal to those rip-off cruise lines. Call it the Guv-Boat.
And I'm kind of into stage coaches. I'd like to see the government offer me the opportunity to take a stage coach from where I live in the High Sierra's to, say, San Francisco. It would be scenic, and environmentally friendly.
And what about blimps? Wow, just slowly floating over the terrain to my destination, and with a Parlour-like lounge to assure I won't be able to pass a sobriety test when I get there. Yeh-the government should fund that too.
And riverboats. Chico Landing is a local landmark. Why doesn't the government subsidize that? Hey, the infrastructure is already there. Cost would be just a million or so. And you talk about enhancing my quality of life? Wow, the views of the riparian forests would be so great! And so environmentally friendly.
No sirree, Mr. Limited, Mr. Rocket is on to something here. I suggest you put your thinkin'-cap on. Right here and now.
heh Posted by notelvis (Member # 3071) on :
Zephyr -
Your suggestions are grand......I'm curious though; Will the cost of cleaning up 'horse emissions' in the street be borne by the Feds or will that fall to local governments?
We could go Mineta here - "Any local government that will not bear the cost of scooping horse poop will not be served. The stage coach will just lock the doors and pass that community by without stopping."
In this case, you could really say that National Transportation Policy is being determined by a bunch of horses' asses, no?
Tee hee, tee hee hee hee.........
Posted by zephyr (Member # 1651) on :
Mr. Pressley, you certainly got your thinkin'-cap on. Great post. Thanks for the laugh to start my day.
Posted by TwinStarRocket (Member # 2142) on :
Oh, the persecution and mockery I must endure at the cruel hands of these witty forum contributors.
I would consider national security, public education, and roads as examples of enhancing my quality of life. It has been said on this forum that a national passenger rail system costs us each about $5/year. If cruises, stagecoaches, blimps and riverboats could be provided for $5/year, I would not begrudge you guys these wise uses of my tax dollar. However, regime change on the other side of the world for the price of 150 years of Amtrak service isn't doing quite as much enhancing as I would like.
Since the provision and regulation of interstate commerce is the constitutional responsibility of the federal government, one could argue that multiple cost-effective choices in nationwide public transportation are a legitimate use of tax revenues. Rail has the potential to be as cost-effective as air and highways (and more environmentally friendly) if we subsidize it equally. I admit to not really considering blimps and stagecoaches though.
If conservation were the exclusive purpose of National Parks, then Yellowstone and Yosemite would be no more developed than ANWAR. Governments at all levels are in the business of providing recreational opportunities for taxpayers.
The LD's traversing "flyover land" have more people per train than the NEC, and trips between the end-points of those LD's cost less by (highly subsidized) plane. This indicates some people want more from their subidized trip than just getting from point A to point B.
Rail is in the unique position of offering transportation from A to B AND recreational opportunity on an existing multi-purpose infrastructure.
But since I really prefer being close to the ground, can I vote for transcontinental go-cart tracks?
Posted by notelvis (Member # 3071) on :
quote:Originally posted by TwinStarRocket: I would consider national security, public education, and roads as examples of enhancing my quality of life. It has been said on this forum that a national passenger rail system costs us each about $5/year. If cruises, stagecoaches, blimps and riverboats could be provided for $5/year, I would not begrudge you guys these wise uses of my tax dollar. However, regime change on the other side of the world for the price 150 years of Amtrak service isn't doing quite as much enhancing as I would like.
All joking aside, I am in agreement with you on this point.
Posted by train lady (Member # 3920) on :
Mr Rocket, you may vote for whatever you choose. this is after all a democracy. But I do remind you, sir, that you are opening a new can of worms(so to speak) Who is going to pay for the gocarts?
Posted by TwinStarRocket (Member # 2142) on :
Train Lady, I am not advocating taxpayer subsidies for the carts themselves,only a vast network of tracks connecting me with all scenic wonders. I suppose if I want the added ambiance of a trailer filled with bagpipers I should use my own funds for that too.
Posted by zephyr (Member # 1651) on :
Rocket, see how you are? We're having a serious exchange of ideas about the expansion of government subsidized travel options, and you go get goofy on us. I mean, go-carts? Get real.
But I'd like to address two points you made in a serious vein (yeh, right). First, the $5/year thing. I remember when that statement was first made on this forum. If I recall correctly, I think the poster just divided this country's population by Amtrak's dream budget (or some other simplistic calculation). But however it was derived, it's a sophomoric way of looking at things. It's just not a useful measure for anything (Well, maybe it is. If every man, woman, and child in this country just sent me a penny, I could......Wow! Do the math.).
The second point is a request. I realize many on this forum are really into advocacy (policy-wonking in zephyr-lingo). And for the wonkers, it's like mating season with the elections approaching.
Now, we know this forum has no adult supervision. Wonker election-cycle rutting frenzies are free to go unchecked. But for those who have been around for a while, we know the end result of this political posturing is almost always hard feelings.
So my request is let's not open that door again. There are many other forums where you can debate and discuss foreign policy and whatever else floats your boat. There's even an advocacy area on this site where you can wonk away to your heart's delight.
But around here, do you think we could just keep it to passenger rail (and closely related topics such as blimps, bagpipers, stagecoaches, and the like)?
Posted by TwinStarRocket (Member # 2142) on :
Zephyr, since the US population just hit 300 million and Amtrak's current budget (actual, not dream) is about $1.4 billion(?), that would come out to $4.67 per person. Since I don't know how many taxpayers there are, it is the only figure I can come up with to put the cost of Amtrak in perspective. I have also heard the annual operating cost of the LD's is about $300-400 million which works out to about a buck each.
I totally agree with you that non-rail political perspectives should be not be introduced into this rail discussion (or people get way too illogical). However, since the cost of the war in Iraq is currently $300 billion and the population just hit 300 million, it has been noted in the news that is $1000 per person (total, not annual). This is the only comparative figure on government expenditures that I have in my head that would put rail subsidies in perspective. I do not mean it to be a political opinion or criticism of the war and I apologize if it was taken that way.
Having said that, I must admit the idea of blimps, bagpipers and stagecoaches just make me feel kind of good all over about the state of the world. But now that I think about it, go-carts are probably not environmentally friendly and I withdraw my advocacy of such.
Posted by notelvis (Member # 3071) on :
quote:Originally posted by zephyr: But around here, do you think we could just keep it to passenger rail (and closely related topics such as blimps, bagpipers, stagecoaches, and the like)?
And horses too! Don't forget the horses.
If you'd rather, we could make the stagecoaches a little smaller and pull them with ponies....because ponies are even cuter than horses!
Posted by HopefulRailUser (Member # 4513) on :
You people are all deeply disturbed.
And I find it even more disturbing that I enjoy you all immensely.
Ponies would be great!
Posted by Ira Slotkin (Member # 81) on :
On a forum devoted to Amtrak, It was noted that postings had some lack Of reference to trains, Even though some took pains To keep ponies in kilts off the track.
Not up to my ususal trainku standards, but then given the postings I somehow thought a limerick more apropos...
Just letting you know I am lurking, Mr. Z; and wanting to be included among the disturbed.
Ira
Posted by HopefulRailUser (Member # 4513) on :
Ira, it goes without saying that you are definitely included.
Posted by Mr. Toy (Member # 311) on :
quote:Originally posted by TwinStarRocket: Rail is in the unique position of offering transportation from A to B AND recreational opportunity on an existing multi-purpose infrastructure.
That is my view as well. I would add that I don't think trips can easily be classified as business, personal business, or pleasure, since two or more of these purposes can be combined in a single journey. People need the flexibility to choose the mode that best suits their needs. Not just the needs of the clock or pocketbook, but the needs of the soul as well. Too often someone does a little (and I emphasize little) math and concludes that flying is always best for trips over X number of miles and that trains are only suited to trips up to X number of miles.
But I think most people, like myself, considers many factors when choosing how to go. I consider all of these things: 1. cost 2. travel time 3. comfort 4. convenience 5. traffic congestion 6. sightseeing 7. availability of services like food, lodging, and rest rooms
We weigh all of these factors in the context of personal schedules, personal finances, and personal desires. So what we conclude is the best mode of transportation for us on any particular trip probably won't jibe with what a statistician would say is our best option. So sometimes we take a train. Sometimes we drive. Since our recent travels have been limited to western states, we have seen no need to fly, except to Hawaii. We take the train where we used to drive, because we appreciate the on board amenities and enjoy the fact that somebody else is driving.
Posted by Ira Slotkin (Member # 81) on :
quote:Originally posted by HopefulRailUser: Ira, it goes without saying that you are definitely included.
I knew I could trust a Nurse...
Posted by HopefulRailUser (Member # 4513) on :
Mr Toy, your comments are right on. I plan a trip to Bosque del Apache Wildlife Preserve in New Mexico in November. I really wanted to take a train but it would take me to Albuquerque, 80 miles from my goal and who knows what time I would arrive. Then I would have to rent a car. The return trip could involve a long wait for a late train. So we will drive from LA. But I certainly did consider it. Ira - you can always trust me.
Posted by zephyr (Member # 1651) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ira Slotkin:
I knew I could trust a Nurse... [/QUOTE]
Ira, ever read One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest? See the movie, maybe?
Posted by HopefulRailUser (Member # 4513) on :
Shhhh. Zephyr, you aren't supposed to let these secrets out of the bag. Besides, Nurse Rached was very devoted to her patients.
Posted by zephyr (Member # 1651) on :
quote:Originally posted by HopefulRailUser: Besides, Nurse Rached was very devoted to her patients.
It's possible McMurphy, Billy Bibbit, and Chief may have a slightly different take on that.
Now, in Ira's honor....
One drove east... One railed west... And one blimped over... The cuckoo's nest.
Posted by TwinStarRocket (Member # 2142) on :
Vicki, Albuquerque is one of the least likely places you would ever encounter a late train. BNSF keeps the Chief on time and there is schedule padding at ABQ, so you would more likely be early than late.
Last time I was there, Hertz either picks you up at the station or pays for your cab ride to their airport location (4 miles), and you can drop your car at the station and leave the keys with the agent.
Posted by HopefulRailUser (Member # 4513) on :
Hmmm - perhaps I should have investigated that a little more. Although, we also plan a stop in Laughlin on the way home so having the car would be best. I am also working on a trip LA to Twin Cities via CHI and back on the Empire Builder via Isaak Walton Inn, etc. for next spring. I am from St. Paul and my husband lived in MPS for about 10 years. We have family to see there. I may consult with you on the best way to do this trip. My current saved intinerary has already gone up in price $300 (the accommodation charge) since I saved it. So, somehow we have got this thread back to discussing Amtrak! But I do believe that the cuckoo's nest is the place for most of us.
Posted by notelvis (Member # 3071) on :
quote:Originally posted by TwinStarRocket: Vicki, Albuquerque is one of the least likely places you would ever encounter a late train. BNSF keeps the Chief on time and there is schedule padding at ABQ, so you would more likely be early than late.
Last time I was there, Hertz either picks you up at the station or pays for your cab ride to their airport location (4 miles), and you can drop your car at the station and leave the keys with the agent.
Hey Vicki,
I concur!
While no train is 100% on-time, the Chief is normally on-time (and often early) arriving into Albuquerque. There is even a cheaper option for reaching the Hertz office at the airport too. The Albuquerque City Transit system has their main terminal NEXT DOOR to the Amtrak station. The city bus takes about one half hour to the airport, costs just $1.00, and gives you a close-up look at the University of New Mexico on the way.
My wife and I have interfaced between air/rail/and rental car in ABQ 2 or 3 times now and I've done it on my own two other times. In fact, in 2002 when Amtrak was threatened by the possibility of a total shutdown I rode #4 from LAX to ABQ (arrived early), caught the bus to the airport, flew back to LAX, got one of the direct vans from the airport, and walked into Union Station just 24 hours after my first departure.......and then I left again on the Sunset which pulled out at 10:30pm in those days.
But I digress.......Albuquerque is one of the easiest and cheapest cities to switch transportation modes in. You can always get good info here on ABQ by posting a thread to 'Chucky's Attention'.....he's a regular on this forum who lives there.
Happy Trax.......Oh, and I stayed on topic here. Not one word about ponies!
Posted by dilly (Member # 1427) on :
quote:Originally posted by notelvis:
quote:Originally posted by TwinStarRocket: Vicki, Albuquerque is one of the least likely places you would ever encounter a late train. BNSF keeps the Chief on time and there is schedule padding at ABQ, so you would more likely be early than late.
Last time I was there, Hertz either picks you up at the station or pays for your cab ride to their airport location (4 miles), and you can drop your car at the station and leave the keys with the agent.
Hey Vicki,
I concur!
While no train is 100% on-time, the Chief is normally on-time (and often early) arriving into Albuquerque.
For what it's worth. . .
I've traveled on the Southwest Chief, from Chicago to L.A., four times during the past four years. Each time, the train was late pulling into Albuquerque (5 hours, 3 hours, 4.5 hours, and 4 hours).
Apart from the Sunset Limited, I've now traveled on every Amtrak route from end-to-end, many of them more than once. So I no longer presume that any train will arrive at a given city anywhere near the scheduled time. Not even on routes "famed" for their on-time performance (on my earlier-mentioned trip San Joaquins trip, the train arrived in Bakersfield 2 hours late). And not even when traveling along the NEC, where Amtrak actually owns the tracks.
My motto for having an enjoyable rail trip: "Anticipate the worst and hope for the best."
---------------------------------
Posted by TwinStarRocket (Member # 2142) on :
I stand by my claims of a probable early arrival in ABQ. To settle this dispute I went to Amtrak Train Status to find the last 5 arrival times of the 3 and 4. Eight of 10 were early by an average of 44 minutes. Two were late by 14 and 40 minutes. I rest my case.
From personal experience of about 22 arrivals in ABQ over the last 30 years, all were early. Dilly must have just run into some unusually bad luck, but that is always a risk on any train.
On a few occasions, I even picked up my checked baggage, took a cab to the airport, and was driving my rental car south on I-25 from ABQ when the #3 I was just on passed me. You can't beat that for convenience. I beat my train out of town.
In regards to Bosque del Apache, I once found every motel in Socorro full due to birdwatchers catching some migration that was happening when I got there. I recommend the very reasonable El Camino Supper Club, and the Econolodge next door allows you discount meals there as well as their very good free breakfast.
Posted by palmland (Member # 4344) on :
Well Dilly, I think the railroad you are traveling on does make a difference. Your odds are much better for an OT arrival on the BNSF routes than about any other, except maybe the City of New Orleans/CN.
Our recent trip to Seattle on the EB and then Cascades to and from Vancouver were all on time. In the case of the EB, we arrived King St. station just as the digital clock on the platform changed to 10:20 - the scheduled arrival time. The BNSF does do a better job of dispatching than about anyone else. On a trip on the Sunset we were 'lucky' and it was only 4 hours late.
That said, the worst can happen so scheduling a close LD connection (ie. same day) is not a good idea
Posted by notelvis (Member # 3071) on :
Interestingly, in more than 33 years now of riding scheduled passenger trains, I have only twice missed a connection. Both of those were changing to Hiawatha service trains for Milwaukee....once coming off a three hour late 'Cardinal' and the other time off a four hour late 'Southwest Chief'. (That was due to an Amtrak engine failure, not BNSF dispatching)
In both cases I actually made it to the north departure gate at Chicago Union Station in time to see the marker lights of the train I had hoped to catch swing out of sight around the curve.
Posted by HopefulRailUser (Member # 4513) on :
Twin Star - We go to the Bosque every year, this will be our fourth. We actually go the week after the Crane Festival to avoid the crowds and stay in a lovely B&B in San Antonio, NM. Have stayed in the Econolodge too. "Some migration" is actually the wintering place of about 15,000 Sandhill Cranes and 50,000 Snow Geese. One goes out at dawn (brrrr, real cold) and dusk to watch them fly out and back from the fields they dine in during the day. All leave at once at dawn, a fabulous sight and sound. Glad to hear about the SW Chief, that will be our planned initial route for the Twin Cities/Empire Builder trip.
Posted by TwinStarRocket (Member # 2142) on :
Wow, this thread has gone a lot of directions from San Joaquin, some of them delightfully silly.
Vicki, I know what you mean by brrrr. The overnight temp in New Mexico in March is actually lower than here in Minnesota. But the days are hot (to a Minnesotan).
I have often passed through San Antonio, NM on my way to Alamogordo and White Sands. It looked like a neat little town and I have been tempted to stop there for a burger or a beer. I love to escape winter in SW New Mexico because not too many people have discovered it yet.
I suppose you know you are stuck with a 22 hour layover in Chicago when you try to connect to or from the Empire Builder from any other western train. That is why I always drive to Iowa or Missouri to go to the Southwest by train. (The Twin Star Rocket is the train that would have connected me from St. Paul to the Chief in the pre-Amtrak days.)
I have never heard anything but extreme praise for the Isaak Walton Inn. There is no checked baggage at Essex if that is a concern. If you want checked baggage and a car, Hertz and Budget meet you at the Whitefish depot. If you don't want to drive, I think the wonderful red busses that tour Glacier pick up at the Isaak Walton.
------------- Jerry in perpetually gray, cold and damp Minnesota.
Posted by RRCHINA (Member # 1514) on :
For those who may not know: The Hilton Hotel chain originated in San Antonio, NM. No, there was never a Hilton in San Antonio but that is where the Hilton family first became hotel ownwers and operators.
And there was once a cafe there to which all of the locals, 50-100 miles, came to eat. I have not been there for 40 years. Also, there was a bar in Socorro which had (in the 1950'S) a variety of beers that was astounding.
Posted by RRRICH (Member # 1418) on :
Twin Star - yes the red "jammer" busses DO in fact pick up passengers at the Izaak Walton Inn for Glacier Park tours, but you need to make reservations ahead of time.
Posted by palmland (Member # 4344) on :
RRRich- Do you know if the red busses operate in the winter. I know the E. Glacier lodge is closed but do the busses operate from other lodges with an Issac Walton pickup.
Both the lodge at E. Glacier and the Issac Walton looked so appealing on our recent trip, that I thought it might be fun to take a winter time trip to Glacier NP and use the Issac Walton as our base.
Posted by TwinStarRocket (Member # 2142) on :
Ain't Google grand? Downloading the brochure gives the most info. They evidently only run May-Sept.
I have heard people cross country ski from the Isaak Walton. Glacier gets pretty snowed in for the winter. Sometimes the Going-to-the-Sun highway is not passable til mid-June. Whitefish is home to a major downhill ski area called Big Mountain, so there is lots of transportation from Whitefish to the mountain.
Y'all from SC gotta realize that in winter you only move around up here when old man Winter lets ya.
Posted by palmland (Member # 4344) on :
Thanks Twin Star. We don't do so well in cold weather anyway. But you know being snowed in at the Issac Walton wouldn't be too bad. Sit there with a hot buttered rum and watch the trains roll by.
Posted by RRRICH (Member # 1418) on :
The Izaak Walton Inn is open year-round, and yes, they do have a cross-country ski area adjacent to the Inn across the footbridge over the BNSF line.
Posted by TwinStarRocket (Member # 2142) on :
On the subject of being snowed in, we had a three day blizzard in St. Paul around Thanksgiving about 22 years ago. The airport, Greyhound, and city bus service was shut down for 3 days. The only thing moving was the Empire Builder, which arrived on time or early all 3 days in both directions. The problem was that the Amtrak passengers that got here couldn't get out of the depot as easily as they could get here from Chicago or Seattle.
Posted by RRRICH (Member # 1418) on :
Hmmm -- how did we get from the topic "San Joaquin trip" to a discussion about the Izaak Walton Inn, jammer busses, skiing, and being snowbound in St. Paul?
Hee-hee......
Posted by TwinStarRocket (Member # 2142) on :
Don't forget blimps, go carts and ponies!
Posted by HopefulRailUser (Member # 4513) on :
And a brief reference to bagpipes!
Posted by train lady (Member # 3920) on :
The answer,RRRich, is quite simple. The regular posters on this forum have become friends. As such the discussions flow back and forth along with comments and kidding as if we were all sitting around in someone's living room. I assume not having an alert moderator helps too. But fear, not sooner or later someone will pull the discussion back from wence it started.
Posted by TwinStarRocket (Member # 2142) on :
Does it ever snow on the San Joaquin route?
Posted by zephyr (Member # 1651) on :
quote:Originally posted by TwinStarRocket: Does it ever snow on the San Joaquin route?
Surprisingly (considering the source), that's a very good question.
Snow has been known to fall upon the tracks of the San Joaquin's (note the focus on the rail portion, not the pavement portion). But it's very unusual. About as rare as hen's teeth, or the Cub's winning the World Series, or spending a summer evening in Bemidji MN without seeing a mosquito. But, maybe once a generation, it does snow (to use technical terms, an "itty-bitty-bit"). Sissy stuff for people with zip codes of 5-something. But it has been known to happen.
But many foreigners (those from zip codes other than 9-something) are easily misled when they see rotary snow plows and blowers when they travel along the route of the SJ's. They just assume these plows and blowers are staged along the line for snow removal. We 9-Zippers find that very amusing ("Hey, Billy Bob, I think we got a Zip 5 here.").
The plows and blowers are staged along the line for tule fog removal. In early winter, this thick ground fog can get so bad you can't see your main squeeze's face when you're doing a lip lock procedure. (It's similar to the distances you can see in a mosquito swarm in July on Turtle Lake north of Bemidji, though the lip lock example probably wouldn't apply under these conditions). In fact, this area is the second most foggiest in the world (the most foggiest being Washington D.C.).
This tule fog can cause havoc to most means of transportation. Planes can be grounded for days. Chain reaction accidents on valley highways involving hundreds of cars are common. Horses (even ponies) can get disoriented, tempermental, and skittish. But Amtrak...Ah, the railroads have these plows and blowers. Even though it is not their intended purpose, they are put to work to drill a sight-hole through this miserable muck.
Yes, these plows and blowers just blow a path (old rails call it a "peep hole") through the fog so the engineer (that'd be "driver" for our friends across the pond and Thomas the Tank Engine junkies) can see and stay on track.
Of course, what's really needed are fog sheds. And unlike similar protective structures over Donner, these sheds would not degrade the scenic quality of this particular route. If Americans would just chip in $1.47 per person, we could have them. But our elected leaders can be so short-sighted. The rotary fog plows and blowers will just have to do for now.
So, Mr. Rocket, I hope I answered your question. If you ever travel on the San Joaquin's, and recall what I've said here, maybe you can pass as someone from someplace other than zip 5-something.
Posted by travelplus (Member # 3679) on :
I love the San Jquains when I am making the connection from SJC to the Soutwest Chief going down as the darn Surfliner requires a 6 hour bus ride which I did this last time(on a free Guest Rewards trip with Business Class). I like the San Juaqins because you only go on a 90 min bus ride from SJC to Stockton where you wait 25 minutes relaxing and walking around and then a 2 hour bus ride to LAUS. So all in all it's mostly on the train.
I have noticed that they operate this train like a high speed Talgo and at times you are going around 80 miles an hour. They don't usually stop for another train. And it arrives Bakersfiled usually 10-15 mins early.
Posted by RRRICH (Member # 1418) on :
train lady - I really didn't expect anyone to reply to that last post of mine, but thanks anyway!!! I was just making a philosophical observation. I too enjoy these periodic "diversions" from the topic of interest.
So let's continue our discussion about the "tule fog!"
Har-har!!
P.S. Who is the "driver" for Thomas the Tank Engine?
![[Wink]](wink.gif)