Ms. Fowler, the author, offers an excellent insight: Long-distance Amtrak travel is not for misanthropes.
Posted by mgt (Member # 5479) on :
I read the above article yesterday with mixed feelings, Heatherite! Yes it is good for Amtrak to get positive publicity as long as it does not encourage too many Btits to use it! What I like about the Amtrak long distance trains is that they are a proper means of transport providing a needed service, not some luxury trip into nostalgia, although that too has its place. My wife and I have really enjoyed meeting such a variety of people from all walks of life at meals and in the Lounge Cars. You get a real insight into the country and what makes it tick. We have even had amicable conversations with fellow-travellers whose politics were quite different from ours.
Posted by mpaulshore (Member # 3785) on :
Ms. Ruth Fowler's fundamentally positive attitude towards Amtrak is certainly to be appreciated by those of us who care about American intercity rail travel. However, her article is also full of absurdities that cast doubt on her skill and/or integrity as a journalist. Let's analyze them:
-- The article title "All aboard the American express" shows that, like Americans, Brits are not immune to the temptation to meaninglessly throw the term "express" around. While Amtrak's medium- and long-distance trains aren't exactly locals, they aren't exactly expresses either.
-- Ms. Fowler says that "a cross-country road trip would have cost me around $2,500 in fuel alone". Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland (Oregon), and Seattle are all roughly 2,900 miles from New York by superhighway. If one were to travel on superhighways and get 25 miles per gallon, then at $4 a gallon that would be roughly $415 in fuel one-way, or $830 round-trip. If one were to take lesser, somewhat lengthier roads and get, say, 20 miles per gallon, that might be around $650 in fuel one-way, or $1300 round-trip. Following Ms. Fowler's New York-Chicago-Minneapolis-Whitefish-Portland (Oregon)-San Francisco itinerary, one would drive roughly 4,100 miles on a mixture of superhighways and necessary lesser, often mountainous roads, and might incur fuel consumption of about $745 one-way/$1490 round-trip at, say, 22 miles per gallon; or perhaps $950 one-way/$1900 round-trip at, say, 19 miles per gallon taking only lesser roads. No matter how you look at it, it's considerably less than $2,500!
-- The story of the person who claimed to have been delayed a day going from New York to Los Angeles because the train he or she was on crashed into a car stalled on the tracks is at best misleading. In accidents of that type, if the train is not disabled, it is generally delayed for no more than two or three hours while the police investigate the accident. If the train is disabled, there might be a delay of several hours while a new locomotive is brought or buses are brought. But not a day. Most likely what happened is that the accident occurred while this person was on the New York-to-Chicago portion of the trip, and the connection to the Chicago-to-Los Angeles train was missed, resulting in the one-day delay. The vast majority of Guardian readers would not figure this out, however, and would simply assume that Amtrak is so inefficient that a collision with a car is likely to immobilize one of its trains, with the passengers trapped inside, for twenty-four hours.
-- Ms. Fowler refers to Amtrak as "government-run". It's not government-run in the usual sense of the term. It's government-owned.
-- Ms. Fowler states that "[Amtrak's] increased popularity has even led to talk of reinstating routes that fell out of use last century". As most RAILforum readers know, while Amtrak's increased popularity might have increased such talk, it certainly hasn't originated it. Throughout Amtrak's history, there has always been talk of reinstating discontinued routes.
-- New York to Chicago on the Lake Shore Limited is a 19-hour trip, not an 18-hour one. Ms. Fowler apparently failed to notice the time zone change. British journalists reporting on Amtrak often seem to do this.
-- The Lake Shore Limited has "dining cars"? Amtrak hasn't offered more than one dining car on any train for years. And I presume the "flower-adorned tables" were actually silk-flower-adorned.
-- Ms. Fowler sat with Eric the conductor at dinner in the dining car? I've never seen such a thing happen, and in fact, according to Ms. Fowler's blog of her trip at http://miminewyork.blogspot.com , it didn't happen: Eric was the lounge car attendant, who, just as she was getting up from her table after paying for dinner, sat down with her--physically pushing her back into her seat at the table--and insisted on her staying with him while he had dinner during his break, and then made a blatant sexual advance towards her, inviting her to join him for the night in his room. (This was the June 5th, 2008 departure of the westbound Lake Shore. Is anyone from Amtrak management reading this?) The blog also partially clarifies the timeline of the evening's activities, which in the article appear to include a dinner that was at least four hours long, extending from "a couple of hours" after the New York departure to some time past Syracuse: apparently what actually happened was that Ms. Fowler began her dinner around seven, stayed for about two hours (her own dinner plus Eric's), and then shifted to drinking in the lounge, by which time the train was getting close to Syracuse. The story of the pot-smoking woman who was left behind at Syracuse was told to her not by Eric--the supposed conductor--but partly by Norman the coach attendant and partly by a couple of "college kids" drinking in the lounge. One thing I don't understand: Repeatedly in both the article and the blog, Ms. Fowler makes it sound as if the dining car and the lounge car are one and the same. Is Amtrak cramming both functions into one car, at least on some trips? It seems hardly possible, considering how full both the dining car and the lounge car were on relatively recent Lake Shore trips that I made prior to that train's dining car equipment difficulties and radical dining service simplification. Does anyone on this board know something about this? If there were separate dining and lounge cars, Ms. Fowler commits a journalistic lapse by not mentioning her switch from one to the other; and Guardian readers travelling on Amtrak in the future might be forgiven for wondering whether they would really want to eat dinner in the dining car if the sort of bacchanalian atmosphere described by Ms. Fowler prevails.
-- Ms. Fowler's story of a conductor relating that a pot-smoking woman had boarded "the wrong train" at Syracuse makes little sense, since there are normally no other trains at Syracuse when the westbound Lake Shore Limited passes through: the last previous westbound is scheduled to depart Syracuse three hours earlier on weekdays (remember that this was a Thursday), and the last eastbound of the day is scheduled to depart three-and-a-half hours earlier. It also makes little sense that this hypothetical woman could have gotten high enough on marijuana during a brief stepping-off from a train to "board the wrong train because she was high as a kite". Ms. Fowler's blog does and doesn't clarify this scenario. As I mentioned above, the story of the pot-smoking woman was actually told to her not by a conductor, who presumably would know with certainty about the woman's boarding "the wrong train" from radio communication with the other train's crew: rather, it was related partly by Norman the coach attendant and partly by two liquor- and pot-addled "college kids", with the latter being the ones who added the detail about the woman's boarding the wrong train. Ms. Fowler makes the fairly preposterous assertion that the Syracuse stop was a half-hour long; and she states that the college kids said they were smoking marijuana with the woman at the station, and subsequently claimed that "that stoopid woman [. . .] was so toasted after one toke on a dooby she got on the wrong damn train!". How would these kids have known what the woman did? And why wouldn't they have stopped her? It seems pretty clear that, while a female passenger may well have been left behind, the boarding-the-wrong-train detail was an imaginative embellishment by the kids. Note that Ms. Fowler apparently sees nothing wrong with taking this dubious story detail out of the mouths of a couple of drugged young passengers, and putting it into the mouth of an Amtrak employee (albeit an imaginary one, since as we've seen above there was in fact no "Eric the conductor"). What makes this passage in Ms. Fowler's article particularly vexatious is that it combines falsity--apparent falsity if you just read the article, or confirmed falsity if you compare the article with the blog--with the implication that Amtrak stations are such wild and wooly places that passengers can easily get away with smoking marijuana there.
-- The on-train guide in Wisconsin was a National Park Service volunteer, not an "Amtrak guide". Would that Amtrak could actually employ people to do that sort of thing!
-- The passage in which Ms. Fowler claims that "[a]fter a month I was sleep-deprived, giddy, exhausted[,] and overwhelmed" is greatly misleading, because it implies that she spent many nights on the train, and that her overall time spent on the train dominated her month. In reality, she only spent four nights on the train; and her daytime travel amounted to three full days and two half-days. How exactly does one become chronically sleep-deprived from spending an average of one night a week on trains over a one-month period?
-- Ms. Fowler has no right to assert that "If you want [. . .] comfort [and] sleep [. . .] Amtrak is not for you", seeing as she never gave the sleeping cars a try. I have plenty of comfort and sleep in my roomette or bedroom, thank you very much! And there can be plenty of comfort in Amtrak daytime Coach Class, Business Class, or First Class travel as well. I would also take issue with her blanket assertion that "If you want [. . .] speed [. . .] Amtrak is not for you": As I hardly need to explain to RAILforum readers, Amtrak's speed compares favorably with that of other modes in some, though obviously not all, circumstances.
-- Ms. Fowler's statement that "If you want to see tourist America [. . .] get on Route 66" is illogical. U.S. Route 66 no longer exists. A few segments of the former U.S. Route 66 have been designated as "Historic Route 66" or as California State Route 66.
-- The California Zephyr takes about 54 hours, not 48, to reach San Francisco from Chicago; and its route length is 2,438 miles, not 2,348. The Downeaster trains take either 2 hours and 25 minutes or 2 hours and 30 minutes to reach Portland, Maine from Boston, not "just under three hours". And the Texas Eagle takes about 33 hours to go from Chicago to San Antonio (and about 31 the other way), not 36. Amtrak could sue The Guardian over these inaccuracies if it had the cojones to do so. Also, the Texas Eagle never travels along the Mississippi: it merely crosses it at St. Louis. Also, it would have been nice to mention that, three days a week in each direction, the Texas Eagle also goes between San Antonio and Los Angeles.
-- The mention of the October "California Rails" tour arguably does not belong in the "Make tracks across the states" section at the end of the article, since that tour basically consists of being driven around southern California in a van and watching trains. It's not clear that the tour includes any train riding at all.
It's to be regretted that this is what passes for a "good" article about Amtrak. It shows what a long way we have to go before the lay public has a significant chance of coming to understand what intercity train travel in America is really like. In a blog entry dated July 8, 2008, 11:41 p.m.--after I wrote the original version of this post, and prior to my first revision of it--Ms. Fowler states that "[t]here are different kinds of journalists in this world and I am one of the sh*t ones". How could we argue with that?
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr. Paulshore, did you perchance click on Ms. Fowler's profile? It certainly appears she is a youngster who has led a "diverse" life.
The article is addressing a market segment that I guarantee you I'm not part of - I sense same applies to you as well.
The article at least acknowledges that there is a Sleeper class, and likely from her Coach seat and her propensity to "party down", she likely was a bit "sleep deprived".
Let's just say the "infotainment" is directed towards a demographic not of our own; young persons who like to watch ET, Extra, Access Hollywood, or the Brit equivalent of any such, are more tuned into that style than are we. The article should stir up interest amongst young Brits willing to travel Coach (leaving rooms open for you and I) and in the process repatriate some $$$.
This is the advertiser-revered 18-34 demographic I believe Ms. Fowler is addressing. Finally, do you plan to forward your "missive" to Ms. Fowler or her Editor?
Posted by Sinclair (Member # 5155) on :
nice title, Brit's support Amtrak! Well I've been on a few Amtrak trips (Crescent, Capitol Limited, Three Rivers, NE Corridor) and I'm doing all I can to support you guys across the pond. Travel agents over here just miss out the rail option all together when telling people about the US so I do what I can to get people on the rails when they are visiting.
Journalists are never known for getting the facts right, at least it was positive!
Posted by Henry Kisor (Member # 4776) on :
At least the rest of us can take comfort that we have one more person on our "Do Not Travel With Under Any Circumstances" list. And that is NOT the comely Ms. Fowler.
Posted by ellenorigby (Member # 9414) on :
Good for U.S., I love Amtrak and I don't appreciate anyone telling us it's downfalls. We all know that no one or nothing is perfect. All of my Amtrak experiences have been wonderful. I'm like a PR person for them I tell people to travel by train all the time. Geez the trains are a wonderful and special way to travel, so get with the program people. I'd love to try one of those high speed european trains sometime though, but hey there's way too much to see right here in the USA!!
Posted by train lady (Member # 3920) on :
ellenorigby, I'm with you. I am so tired of all the nit pickers and complainers. No form of public transportation is perfect and if that is what you want please stay home and dream and let the rest of us enjoy. I love train travel. I have ridden many from the Super Chief to todays trains. They all have something to complain aabout if you try to find it. If I sound grumpy I AM
Posted by Southwest Chief (Member # 1227) on :
Interesting report.
The news must be out in England, or it might just be the weak dollar, but on my recent Southwest Chief trip (ABQ-FUL on #3 June 25-26) a huge group of Brits boarded the train at Flagstaff. The train was pretty late due to the Midwest flooding so I think we got into Flagg around 2:30 AM?
I doubt this applies to most British travelers, but this group had little courtesy to passengers already on board. While trying to sleep (it was early in the morning) this group was so loud boarding. They were complaining to the porter about the lateness, (which he has no control of) and they were so loud with their luggage and went back and forth throughout the train. The diner and lounge were closed so I don't know where they were going. What's funny though as soon as I got to the point of enough is enough, and I put shoes on, and I came out of my room to tell them to quiet down they all disappeared as soon as I opened the door.
The next morning in the dining car was kind of funny. Apart from my sister and I the car was essentially all British. The older pair seated with us didn't talk much, although I tried my best to initiate some conversation. They were probably too tied from the late arrival into Flagg.
I knew there must be a large group getting on somewhere as when we boarded in ABQ the only sleeping car passengers boarding were my sister and I. And both sleepers were surprisingly empty...that is until we got to Flagstaff. My guess is the group went to see the Grand Canyon, which Flagg is a big stop for on the Chief.
I'm not sure how happy the group was about this Amtrak journey though, but the word is apparently out.
Posted by Henry Kisor (Member # 4776) on :
Southwest Chief, on one of my Zephyr trips in the early '90s half my sleeper was occupied by a group of pissed-off German tourists who thought they were to occupy full bedrooms, not roomettes -- their travel agent in Stuttgart didn't know the difference and booked them into the "economy bedrooms," as they were called then.
And of course they took it out on the poor sleeper attendant all the way from Chicago to Glenwood Springs. He manfully kept his cool, did the best job he could under those circumstances, and two other Yank passengers and I double-tipped him at the end.
For decades we have heard how ugly American tourists can be abroad. Seems that we're not alone.
Posted by train lady (Member # 3920) on :
Henry, my husband and I must have been on the same train. We kept hearing all the "commotion" from a group of Germans but didn't know what was wrong until we got to Denver and the attendent explained it as we got out on the platform.
Posted by Henry Kisor (Member # 4776) on :
Then there was a huge Austrian with the demeanor of an overgrown Hitlerjugend who took exception at the conductor's moving him from his window seat in a crowded coach so that a mother and child could be seated together. Repeatedly he berated the conductor, who absorbed the abuse patiently and responded politely but did not seem to come anywhere near to throwing the *ssh*l* off the train, as he should have been.
My favorite was a group of overly cheerful Aussies in the lounge car. They sang dirty songs and kissed the ladies and when their husbands stood up to protest bought a round of drinks for them. It was a deplorable scene but it was impossible to stay mad at them.
Posted by John Hull (Member # 4465) on :
On train 422 in 2006 we thought we were the only Brits aboard until in the dining car we saw another couple just down the car who were obviously British because they were using their knife and fork in the same way as us! The great thing about Amtrak travel is meeting people from the US. I don't want to travel 5,000 miles and sit with a lot of people from England! (Especially if they are noisy and irritating!) On the original topic, reporters are renowned for their inaccuracies, but it was pleasing to see a positive approach to Amtrak in the UK media. Good, too to see all the nice reports in the US press. John
Posted by train lady (Member # 3920) on :
One of the things I love about train travel is meeting people from all over..reverse of John's statement but definiely the same idea. We have shared a table with people from Australia, UK, Scotland, Canada, Japan, Korea ( he spoke no English so we communicated by sign language)and the Netherlands. We have remained friends with that couple for 8 years. They have since married, moved to Norway and have a 7 year old son.We still e mail back and forth. I don't think that would happen on a plane.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
The idea of the "Ugly American" abroad is generally a European construct that we too easily buy into. It is primarily because we do not instantly and automatically bow down and genuflect to their supposedly awesome cultural and technological superiority.
Having worked a total of almost 17 years overseas (in Asia) I have been asked more than once by local people there, "Why are Americans so much easier to get along with than Europeans?"
Don't know the full answer, but a few factors might be: The European concept of "international" is another European country. We tend to view people in another country and continent as people, not potential or former colonial subjects. The huge variation in climate, conditions, and practices INSIDE the US far exceeds those in Europe in total. We did not go to their country to sell our home country products and standards. (We should more than we do. In many things, American designs are the superior product to the high cost high maintenance products they promote.) If you have moved a few times between states in the US, moving to a foreign country is mostly a more extreme version of the same thing. I have seen way too many people, mostly but not all European, that seem to think their prime directive in a foreign place is to instruct all and sundry, whether willing to listen or not, in how wonderful things are in whatever country they are from and therefore you poor ignorant benighted locals should go and do likewise. And, while we are at it, the way you deliver your mail, operate your utilities, your public transport, design and build your roads and everything else is simply all wrong.
Posted by Moderator (Member # 2933) on :
Mr. Harris, I don't often surface on the boards, and I thought long and carefully before doing so, but I wanted you to know that I totally disagree with what you have written. But, isn't free speech wonderful
the Moderator
Posted by train lady (Member # 3920) on :
It is interesting that you 2 should come up with this. just last week I read an article on the very subject. the concluson seems to be that the French are among the worst ,ditto the Germans while we Americans have come up in the world.I can't remember where I read it but I think it was on Yahoo. At any rate I googled the subject and after many tries found a numver of articles under the search term The worst tourists. The article in Time magazine seemed to be the one I read.according to what have read even the French don't like the French tourists. Moderator you are right, free speech is a comodity to be cherished. Unfortunately there are too many people who feel there are only 2 opinions, theirs and the wrong one.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
quote:Originally posted by Moderator: Mr. Harris, I don't often surface on the boards, and I thought long and carefully before doing so, but I wanted you to know that I totally disagree with what you have written. But, isn't free speech wonderful
the Moderator
Care to elaborate? It's one thing to state a blanket disagreement (with a sarcastic implication that free speech needs to be restricted); it's yet another thing to give a reasoned rebuttal, especially after long and careful thought.
Xenophobia is a long-standing characteristic of continental Europe (after all, it's the very thing that sparked two world wars); much less so of the British Isles or its descendant the USA. This characteristic is becoming increasingly more manifest (again) the further right the EU goes, as has been the trend of late.
Posted by mgt (Member # 5479) on :
I do think too many generalisations have surfaced in this topic. Being a supporter of Amtrak I was pleased to read the Observer article, and made my initial comment to Heatherite tongue-in-cheek! There were inaccuracies but it was a positive report on a system which, as Sinclair mentioned, is rarely acknowledged in the UK. While travelling with Amtrak we have had very positive impressions of the U.S. However on our first trip to the US an encounter with a large group of US citizens in Paris en route to Cincinatti after the plane had been cancelled did not augur well. Granted the cancellation was dealt with badly by the French. Granted for most of the travellers it was the end of their holiday. But there was a degree of petulance,arrogance and aggression towards fellow travellers and staff which we had not encountered elsewhere, and that having lived in Germany for four years and having travelled widely throughout Europe. The main reason for our concern was the widely held belief that in Paris everyone should be speaking English! I also agree that there is a wide diversity of culture within the U.S. I was patronised by an elderly lady from the East Coast in the cafe of the Denver Art Gallery who complimented me for 'not weairng a hat' and seemed to regard the Colorado indigens as some sort of sub-species. Let us all agree that travel is a wonderful thing and should help to bring people closer together. That has certainly been our experience on Amtrak
Posted by Geoff M (Member # 153) on :
Interesting comments from Mr. Harris and Irishchieftain. Oddly their exact words tend to be the European view of Americans - and I take his "Asian view" with a sack of salt, being as I am married to an Asian with a large circle of Asian friends who have no such views matching Mr. Harris'. So, taking the middle line here, we probably all stereotype each other into cosy cubby holes, each as bad as the other.
But at the end of day, most of us would prefer to be tourists in areas which are tourist-free, of any nationality. Sadly such places are few and far between.
I would suggest we stick to trains. Less arguments there.
Geoff M.
Posted by Henry Kisor (Member # 4776) on :
Geoff M:
Coincidentally Paul Theroux has this to say on the very first page of his upcoming book "Ghost Train to the Eastern Star":
". . . A traveler's worst nightmare is not the secret police or the witch doctors or malaria, but rather the prospect of meeting another traveler."
I was lucky enough to get my hands on an advance reading copy of this book (it will be out August 18) and recommend it to every lover of flanged wheel on steel rail.
Posted by Moderator (Member # 2933) on :
This is why the powers that be have asked me not to post on the forum, it is too easy to be drawn into a discussion that I really have no business participating in unless I am a registered forum member and not the moderator. I, too, read the article as a positive pat on the back for Amtrak, although I did pick out a few inacuracies, but overall enjoyed it and was happy to see some constructive reporting rather than the negative kind. To irishchieftain there was no sarcastic implication that free speech needs to be restricted, but rather the implication of how fortunate we all are to be able to practice it. I guess I disagreed with Mr. Harris's overview (?) that all of Europe and Europeans be painted with the same brush, although I have to admit he has 17 more years than I do when it comes to living over there. That, in fact, there is such a thing as an "ugly American", and they can hold their own against the "ugly German" and "ugly Brit" or how about the "ugly Frenchman" and "ugly Turk", not to be confused with the "ugly Canadian" or the "ugly Spaniard". Thankfully these people make up a very small percentage of the whole but, unfortunately, like the squeaky wheel they stand out and are remembered as a representative of their respective country. I did not mean to offend, and will leave you now to continue with what this forum is all about.
the Moderator
Posted by heatherite (Member # 6059) on :
Well,I'm glad the article stimulated such a good exchange of views. Personally, I believe any publicity is good publicity even if some of the facts are wrong. I do all I can to convince my friends to ride the rails in the USA as an alternative to flying. Part of the problem in obtaining that conviction is that a lot of our people, particularly city daily commuters, have such a bad image of rail travel in this country that they think it's the same the world over. Of course the time factor can also be a bit off-putting to some who are used to fast jet travel. What most want, especially if time is short, is to wake up in New York and go to sleep that night in LA. I say "take your time, watch the scenery and smell the coffee". I certainly will next year.
Posted by mr williams (Member # 1928) on :
Just a pity the article was in "The Guardian"
Mind you, talking of inaccuracies, a few years ago my local paper carried an article on great rail journeys (from a vacationers point of view) and the one they chose from the US was the Southwest Chief. I could live with them saying that the train left Chicago at "breakfast time" (very late breakfast) but I fell about laughing when I read that there were famous romantically named locomotives called "Pacific Surfliner", "Coast Starlight" and "California Dreams"!!!
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)