Hah! The credit card rewards ruined these. Now they're all crowded and it's just as hard to find a seat as it is outside the lounge. Plus the food in them isn't that great anymore. The best benefit is usually a better view out the window. Real frequent fliers just get PreCheck+Clear and arrive at the airport closer to departure time.
I did this same train journey myself back in 2012. Great memories! I just wish 2 things:
1) Amtrak wouldn't recycle the air on train carriages, it gets really stuffy. The downstairs washroom smells get mixed in too.
2) Single riders should be given both seats on these journeys. I was like 19 when I did this journey and an unusual middle aged lady was placed next to me. She kept asking me for medicines and fell asleep on my shoulder.
Riding through the desert outside of Albuquerque during sunset was the highlight. Walk all the way to the back of the train, look at the back window, get a rare listen of the jointed (not welded) tracks. Here's my video of it -https://vimeo.com/57261056
>2) Single riders should be given both seats on these journeys. I was like 19 when I did this journey and an unusual middle aged lady was placed next to me. She kept asking me for medicines and fell asleep on my shoulder.
on one hand, I get it -- that experience would drive me nuts and I have had similar stuff occur.
On the other hand , I've had a few good conversations with row-mates in planes.
the forced interaction is getting more and more rare; personally I think it's fun to be taken out of my comfort zone and be shoved into it once in awhile -- plus Amtrak tickets don't need any more excuses to be as poorly priced as possible.
If I'm by myself on a plane, I REALLY do not want to talk to my row mates. Getting sat with someone chatty is my nightmare. It's nothing personal. It's just that it's the very rare occasion I am not flying with my young kids and I am relishing the opportunity to play a video game or watch a movie or read without anyone bugging me :)
The first time I had to travel for work after having kids was maybe the first time I'd actually enjoyed flying since pre-9/11. My point here isn't to crap on my kids, I love them dearly. But boy do they adjust your perception of everything.
> Getting sat with someone chatty is my nightmare.
Put on a headset (not earbuds) and most will take the hint. I’ve endured too many forced conversations on planes and trains, but not since I started doing that.
I'd love to get both chairs, but wouldn't they have to charge extra for both of them? The coach seating has been fairly full when I've ridden.
I was the opposite of you; I was the young man who fell asleep on the shoulder of the woman next to me. She was nice about it but it was really embarrassing! Sleepers were cheaper, then, too, so I didn't save much by riding coach.
The conversation with one of my breakfast table partners was the trip highlight. He was an elderly widower whose ride cross-country was a gift from his family. Good storyteller and he was pleased that I was happy to join him at his table, as opposed to a couple other introverts who scanned the dining car and left in a panic.
>Now they're all crowded and it's just as hard to find a seat as it is outside the lounge.
While I don't disagree with you, the seats in the lounges are still more comfortable than anything outside the lounges. Probably the only thing I still try them for at this point... maybe stronger wifi, depending on the airport.
On recent long-haul trip on Acela I seem to recall low 1,000s PPM (65% full train across 7hr trip). On a regular train trip, a bit higher, like 1,250-1,900 PPM on a fairly packed train (10 hr trip). Both northeast corridor.
We can hear the Chief whistle in each direction every day that it passes through our part of New Mexico. But the author didn't even take a photograph of my station, Lamy NM (the get-off point for Santa Fe). Unbelievable! :)
We've only done the Lamy<->Chicago section of the Chief, but the timing is so great for that: depart both places mid-afternoon, arrive 25 hrs later (delays notwithstanding).
So, to summarize:
1. No beautiful woman in an adjoining cabin.
2. No high stakes poker games.
3. Not a single murder to solve.
4. No apparent spies. And given the menu had only three wine selections it would be very difficult to ferret out any spies using ones high class upbringing. So for all we know the train could be lousy with spies.
5. Nobody gets tossed off the train.
6. No fight on top of the train cars while the train is approaching a tunnel.
Hear me out, I had a genius idea. Take one of the platforms at Grand Central in NY (they have more than the current railroad needs), load it up with a bunch of historic Pullman sleeper cars, and open it as a novelty hotel. Maybe roll out the red carpet to give that 20th Century limited feel. For an extra 30% add on, a bunch of actors will come along and play out a mystery crime on a train interactive theater cliche, with a script based loosely on that time John Wheeler lost a brief case of nuclear secrets on a sleeper train to DC.
The secret platform that FDR and other presidents have used is presently empty-ish (the railcar he used to carry his limo is abandoned there). But if you do this hotel, it will no longer be a secret..
Pfft that platform is hardly secret. I'm way further down the Grand Central Rabbit hole than that. Tell me when you've found out about the secret museum with the red carpet.
-- All jokes aside: I discovered how great the long distance west bound trains are through the Empire Builder train. It's great, it s peaceful, and it's relaxing. Also, it's a heck of a lot better than the OBB nightjet trains.
My parents took me on a trip via the California Zephyr, Coastal Starlight, and Empire builder when I was 5 years old. I'm now in my 40s and that was one of the most memorable trips I've ever taken. I re-took the California Zephyr with my wife some years ago, and hope to take it again with my child some day.
Memorable travel, not just memorable destinations.
I took my own daughters on the Zephyr a few times. This was because, as a child, my mother took my sister and I from Kansas City to Chicago on a train and it blew my child-mind. So, like you, I passed it on.
Having taken the Zephyr before, despite not being practical, Amtrak is really stupidly beautiful. There's something stunning in being in the middle of the mountains with nothing around.
The second best thing after the scenery is the spotty cellphone reception, so the only thing to do is to look at the amazing scenery through the window instead of scrolling mindlessly on social media.
I've done this twice and I'm still jealous! And yeah, not many people you tell can see the appeal. On the other hand, train!
> economy ... gets you no access to the observation car
This wasn't true many years ago. Is this a recent change? Maybe Covid related to keep the amount of contacts down?
Also if you're in coach, you can still reserve a spot in the dining car and pay for your meal (or at least you could). I did that a few times over the course of a trip. Lots of weird characters in coach, for better and for worse. But at least you know why the train is stopped in a crossing to let Amtrak police board, or who the FBI agents are looking for.
I'd describe taking the train as like a condensed driving trip. If you've got a few days to spare getting to your destination, but not the month required for a full cross country road trip, it's definitely worth doing!
Very pleasant travelogue. I enjoy long distance train travel when I have the time for it, and I think is a pretty helpful post for those considering it.
> Also, economy does not include meals in the dining car and gets you no access to the observation car.
I'm pretty sure observation cars are open to all passengers, regardless of ticket status. Certainly nobody's ever asked me for a ticket when going into one.
Interesting, I stand corrected. I've been on several Amtrak lines across the country in the past couple years, but things have been changing pretty quickly, and I haven't taken that particular line.
That doesn't make sense -- the lower deck of the observation car is the cafe, which is the main (effectively only) place to get food, coffee, etc. when you're in coach, since the dining car is reservation only and you're behind everyone in a room.
The observation car is open to all passengers, no exceptions. The Dining Car is still sleeper-car only, although they seem to want to change it back to taking paid seating from coach/business some time this year.
> I could have bought an economy ticket for $150, but sitting for so long was out of the question. If I treat this as a cruise, I want a good level of comfort.
As someone who's done the Crescent (30 hours) and City of New Orleans + Lake Shore Limited (38 hours + layover) on Economy, you get about the same comfort sleeping, just none of the privacy. The seats in Economy are close to the ones in the bedrooms, you just can't lay them completely flat.
What you're paying $1,000 for is privacy and access to a shower.
Also:
> You can get a bedroom or roomette on an Amtrak sleeper car. A roomette fits two people, with the second person having to sleep on a bunk bed contraption under the room’s ceiling. I was going alone on this trip, and a roomette seemed to be the best choice.
The standard bedroom also sleeps two, and all Amtrak beds are "bunk bed contraptions". The bedroom gets you an in-room shower.
Indeed, there are four types of bedrooms:
- bedroom (seat and sofa that convert to beds, in-room shower)
- bedroom suite (two adjoining bedrooms, including both in-room bathrooms)
- family bedroom (4 seats that fold to beds, using the roomette shower shared with the car)
- accessible bedroom (larger wheelchair-friendlier roomette with its own sink, using the roomette shower shared with the car)
> I didn’t care much about which side of the train I was on because the scenery is very similar, no matter which way you look. This is more important if you take a train along the coastline
If you're on a north-south route, sunrises and sunsets matter a lot, not just for viewing but also determining when you wake up and go to sleep.
> I was happy to learn that Chicago has a decent public transit system.
I mean... which one? ;) Glad he did a shot of Malört before he left though, and Union Station is beautiful.
> I immediately noticed a lot of Amish people sitting in the large hall. This is because travel by plane is considered too modern and travel by train appears to be very popular amongst them.
They might've been Mennonites or Hutterites, who are also Anabaptists but don't have Amish rules on public electrical grids or motorized vehicles.
> I had a 7pm reservation and walked over to the car right in front of mine, the restaurant car. Because space is limited, you will sit with other passengers at tables holding 4 people. ... This is why the food is surprisingly delicious.
Some context: This traditional Amtrak dinner service is very recently back after several years of being cut, especially on the west coast. Availability varies by route and ticket type. It used to be on almost all long routes and available to coach passengers too; it might be back for coach passengers on some routes by now, it's been in the works on eastern trains since 2021.
> I spent almost the entire day in the observation car
This is really the key. The observation car, if your line has one, is the best part of the trip.
> For dinner, we closed the place down. The friendly staff had a bottle of wine to empty, and we were there, talking until almost midnight.
This is the thing too, unlike planes where the crews turn over pretty often between flights, a train line's crew is often on for the whole ride and pretty regular. You can get to know them pretty well if you make the effort, and they'll often remember you if you take the same route again.
East coast coach riders got some access to meals back last year. I don't ride those routes anymore, so I genuinely don't know. It's been a patchwork of dinner service restoration since 2020.
Best advice if meals are meaningful is to ask before you book.
My obligatory reminder of what we lost when Stevie went to the great club car in the sky, where he's playin' cards with the old men, ain't nobody keeping score.
For those of you interested in Amtrak sleeper cars, reserve early, and expect to pay the highest fares on the in-demand, scenic routes. Amtrak's revenue management has gotten a lot better in the last few years, and they are in the midst of a rolling stock and staffing shortage. Sell-outs are common, and ideally, you want to reserve early enough to be in the base sleeper, which won't be cancelled if equipment is scarce. There are frequent reports of sleeper car passengers being bumped down to coach (with a full refund of the room charge) about a month out when it becomes clear that Amtrak will only one sleeper instead of two on your route and you were booked in the second sleeper.
Otherwise, have a great trip, don't be attached to arriving on time, and enjoy that observation car!
Can confirm, I spent that long in a coach seat on the California Zephyr from Chicago to Reno. I wouldn't exactly call it world-class comfort to sleep under such conditions, and I wouldn't recommend it to someone with a bad back, but I've slept in far worse (but then again, I'm a weirdo).
I wouldn’t call them niche, but no, the long distance routes are not profitable and never will be. They were introduce by the Rail Passenger Service act of 1970, and probably were initially requested, for better or worse, to serve as political pork for Amtrak funding as they serve rural communities as well as tourists. One could also argue that Amtrak is kept hostage, and can never offer high quality service (prior to the infrastructure bill) as it needs to bleed money into these routes.
However I think it is a mistake to focus on profitability here. These trains are a public utility, and should be treated as such. We are spending way more money into maintaining the super inefficient transportation system of private automobiles, and you are paying for it even if you don’t own a car your self, that is both thorough direct taxes, but also in increased property/rent prices to accommodate parking, or with the climate disaster.
Ideally I wouldn’t mind Amtrak canceling most of these routes if they were replaced by something better.
I think many shorter but well connected routes throughout these corridors would be better (I mean, one train a day between Seattle and Spokane is not enough). For example, if the Coast Starlight had it’s infrastructure upgraded, tracks straightened with overhead electrical wires, would interline with future Cascadia High Speed Rail to Eugene, run through Medford (as opposed to Klamath Falls) and finally stop in Sacramento where you could transfer to the future California High Speed Rail if you wanted to continue to LA or the Capitol Corridor to San Francisco. This would be way better then a single Coast Starlight train a day between Seattle and LA in 36 hours.
You're right in that the long distance routes don't really make sense on their own, but if you view them as a bunch of shorter commuter routes which happen to be there anyway, then connecting them up tip to tip with a daily "long distance" route makes a lot of sense. To the commuters, it doesn't matter that one of the trains they might board on a given day will continue going long after they get off. But the benefit (aside from connectivity) is that the long distance sleeper car passengers are the most profitable customers the railroad has. Those people in the front of the train with their private rooms and chef made meals effectively subsidize the daily coach class commuters in the back of the train. The trick to it is getting the long distance route time table lined up so that it is coincident with its second purpose as a commuter service when it gets to whatever metro area.
I think there are some routes where a sleeper makes sense, the Empire Builder is one of them (and the Coast Starlight only sorta; like I said, with good connections Seattle-Sacramento should be enough), but ideally they should interline with a bunch of normal interurban. For example along the Empire Builder, there should be more frequent service between Chicago and Minneapolis there should be plenty of interurbans (and a couple that goes to Fargo), but beyond that a single daily sleeper to Seattle is probably enough (and nice for tourists and locals alike). On the other end we really need more frequent service between Seattle and Spokane as well.
> Those people in the front of the train with their private rooms and chef made meals effectively subsidize the daily coach class commuters in the back of the train.
This may have been the case in the past, but with the Dining Cars not allowing coach customers, and their high labor costs for on-board staff, they are losing money badly right now. It might get better if they can get Coach passengers back in, but for the time being, it's still a money pit.
They are not profitable. Like the US Postal Service, Amtrak has a mandate to serve smaller towns. Which means they have to maintain a station and local staff in each to service the typical 2-4 trains a day. Also, since Amtrak doesn't own the tracks outside the Northeast, they have to pay railroads like Union Pacific & BNSF for the privilege.
The Northeastern Corridor is their most profitable section, as the ridership is much higher and they own their own tracks.
What could they do to become profitable? Not sure. Assuming they magically got their own set of tracks for free, they then wouldn't have to pay the railroads for using theirs. But they'd have to pay to maintain all that right-of-way (tracks, bridges, tunnels, signals, etc.) At least they'd be on time though (not blocked by massively long freight trains like they are today).
I do. The federal government should be break even on roads through fuel taxes. Break even on airline ticket fees. At various times both have been true. Rail is horrendously subsidized to the tune of 20 cents per passenger mile. That is an insane subsidy.
From 1990-2005 fuel taxes generated a surplus in the US. In virtually every other developed country, vehicle and fuel taxes are vastly higher than spending on roads.
Where is this bad news? I think fuel taxes should be higher in the US for many reasons. I think Europe should convert much of their passenger rail to freight for environmental reasons.
I made the case a tiny bit further down thread. Yea its recreation, but its recreation at marginal cost to an existing system which helps to subsidize the non-recreational users. Like having a cruise ship appended to a container ship. Amtrak doesn't only exist for / cater to the land version of a cruise ship.
One interesting thing to note is that because of the way they were built, the rural communities on these routes are not near major roads, so cutting the railroads would cut some of them off significantly.
Greyhound as a de facto everywhere to everywhere bus service has declined as well.
This past summer, I took the Coast Starlight from Seattle to Monterey with my wife and kids. I loved it. It's hard to convey how different it is from flying.
Whenever I fly somewhere, especially these days when flying is such a miserable cramped experience, I always feel like my vacation starts after I endure the entire airport + plane experience. The whole travel part is in the same "chore" bucket as packing, finding a pet sitter, etc.
With a train, the second we reached the train station, it felt like the trip had started. Many train stations are beautiful historical buildings right in the heart of downtown, so you're already experiencing a city and cool architecture. The staff and the whole process is very laid back without all of the security theatre nonsense of the TSA. It's about as formal as going to a play.
Then you get on the train and you get to completely relax. I brought a book to read and some stuff like that, but I spent more than half the time literally just looking out the windows. Train tracks don't need much surrounding infrastructure, unlike freeways, so their routes often go right through little towns, along the coast, etc. You'll be seeing into people's backyards, storage area for businesses, farmland, everything. It's like a perfect cross-section of the entire US experience.
And it's quiet. No constant roar of engines like a jet. You can talk at quiet volumes. The observation car feels like a chill coffee shop with an amazing always-refreshing-itself view.
Time slows down. You watch the sun set and then watch the light leak out of the sky. You go to bed and get rocked to sleep.
Taking a sleeper car train ride isn't cheap in terms of time or money, but I would highly recommend it. I can't wait to do it again.
I planned a trip from Seattle to New Mexico on Amtrak and it was pretty cool... until they canceled the leg of the trip from LA to New Mexico and I had to take a Greyhound for like 19 hours.
I was only in business class but that got me access to the dining car. Since I was alone they sat me with different people for each meal and the food was actually really good!
Of the 5 or 6 times I've taken Amtrak only once has the trip not been delayed or screwed up in a way that horribly affected the trip.
I would love to do more train travel but my experiences have been so bad I can't imagine doing it much more than I have to, especially when it's way more expensive and takes way longer than driving a car.
Amtrak has also been starved of cash by politicians who want to kill it, so they don't have the funds to properly maintain their rolling stock. Engine breakdowns are frequent.
Exactly. If we spent as much on rail as we did airline infrastructure we wouldn’t have as many issues.
I don’t have a big problem with it like travel, but it’s like a car. Should be used less frequently and walking (riding the train) should be more common.
Airports are also profitable though. And for that matter, rail infrastructure in the US is also profitable for cargo, which is its primary use.
Passenger rail (including its privately owned infrastructure, such as the railroads themselves) used to be profitable across the US and still is profitable in the Acela corridor and in densely populated parts of Europe and Asia. It stopped being profitable due to being outcompeted by airlines, which is why the US government nationalized it under Amtrak in the first place.
But the airlines are profitable because we don’t account for negative externalities caused by their operation, and saying that they are profitable is a bit rich given the history of bailouts and bankruptcies. Airports are also usually public-private ventures and their operation is defacto subsidized by the federal government.
I don’t have a problem with airlines or anything but I don’t think we have the full competitive picture especially when we take into account the forced suburbanization of America which has all sorts of correlated problems.
For example an airport is “profitable” but there isn’t any reason train stations with similar infrastructure investment and overpriced shops couldn’t be profitable too. But also who cares if it’s profitable?
> But the airlines are profitable because we don’t account for negative externalities caused by their operation
This is also true for trains.
> and saying that they are profitable is a bit rich given the history of bailouts and bankruptcies.
Airlines have been bailed out twice in recent history--during the COVID pandemic and shortly after 9/11. In contrast, Amtrak has operated at a loss, subsidized by American taxpayers, virtually every single year since its inception. Rather than being occasionally bailed out during emergencies of historic scale, Amtrak has been continually bailed out for the past half century.
Yes, some airlines have gone bankrupt. We should let Amtrak do the same if they can't build a sustainable business after over 50 years. If they can carry out a Chapter 11 bankruptcy and restructure into a successful, profitable venture (which is entirely possible if they focus on Acela), more power to them.
> For example an airport is “profitable” but there isn’t any reason train stations with similar infrastructure investment and overpriced shops couldn’t be profitable too.
In some places, train stations are profitable, and I have no desire to interfere with them. American passenger train stations were profitable for a very long time until they were largely rendered obsolete.
> But also who cares if it’s profitable?
American taxpayers who don't want to subsidize whimsical nostalgia tourism.
> American taxpayers who don't want to subsidize whimsical nostalgia tourism.
We subsidize all sorts of whimsical nostalgia. I don’t find that to be a compelling argument.
> This is also true for trains.
Not really because passenger rail in the US is so small as to be negligible. Of course I’d it were to expand to something like the capacity of airlines then yes we would have to evaluate. Hard to see how it’s not cheaper though especially when accounting for other infrastructure changes that are required (fewer cars and less government waste from needless highway construction, appropriate density).
> Airlines have been bailed out twice in recent history--during the COVID pandemic and shortly after 9/11. In contrast, Amtrak has operated at a loss, subsidized by American taxpayers, virtually every single year since its inception. Rather than being occasionally bailed out during emergencies of historic scale, Amtrak has been continually bailed out for the past half century.
> Yes, some airlines have gone bankrupt. We should let Amtrak do the same if they can't build a sustainable business after over 50 years. If they can carry out a Chapter 11 bankruptcy and restructure into a successful, profitable venture (which is entirely possible if they focus on Acela), more power to them.
The problem here is you are comparing apples to oranges.
The subsidy argument doesn’t work because I’m not arguing that airlines or rail shouldn’t be subsidized at all, but that your claim about profitability is marginal because they’re all subsidized.
The Amtrack is never profitable argument by comparison doesn’t work because we haven’t built rail stations for passenger transit that compare to the airlines we built.
> In some places, train stations are profitable, and I have no desire to interfere with them. American passenger train stations were profitable for a very long time until they were largely rendered obsolete.
The stations themselves are perfectly fine from a profitability perspective. They don’t require runways or ATC or the TSA which is a big gubmint jobs program (subsidy) and they can operate all the same stores, restaurants, and other facilities that an airport can and maybe more.
You are right that trains became obsolete in some ways, but those advantages that airline infrastructure once had are and continuing to erode. Trains and pedestrian traffic can judo move airline and car-only infrastructure because they’re able to play a different game. For example today many people say airlines are great because they get you from A-B in 2 hours. But priorities and preferences change, and speed to destination and the hassle involved such as TSA, pre-check, expensive airport lounges, soon to be increasingly high fees and taxes and more expensive fuel, baggage hassle, required rental cars, etc. are all things that will be avoided by rail revival. You can see that this is the case because where rail effectively competes with airline travel rail tends to be preferred.
I don’t think transportation improvements will work in the current political climate in the US (don’t move my cheese!!) which saddens me because it sets us up for abrupt shocks to fragile and dependent infrastructure.
> The subsidy argument doesn’t work because I’m not arguing that airlines or rail shouldn’t be subsidized at all, but that your claim about profitability is marginal because they’re all subsidized.
You're making a false equivalency here between a mostly profitable business sector that occasionally receives bailouts and an almost-completely unprofitable business sector that is continually bailed out.
> The Amtrack is never profitable argument by comparison doesn’t work because we haven’t built rail stations for passenger transit that compare to the airlines we built.
Because those were profitable investments! Passenger rail isn't, at least not outside of the Acela corridor.
> The stations themselves are perfectly fine from a profitability perspective. They don’t require runways or ATC or the TSA which is a big gubmint jobs program (subsidy) and they can operate all the same stores, restaurants, and other facilities that an airport can and maybe more.
Amtrak itself is a big gubmint jobs program (subsidy). When it comes to ATC/TSA, I'm very much in favor of some combination of privatization and user fees; the airline sector could easily afford them.
> You can see that this is the case because where rail effectively competes with airline travel rail tends to be preferred.
Sure; the US doesn't have the population density for that to be the case outside of the Acela corridor though.
> You're making a false equivalency here between a mostly profitable business sector that occasionally receives bailouts and an almost-completely unprofitable business sector that is continually bailed out.
But that’s what I’m trying to tell you, I’m not comparing them because the comparison doesn’t make sense when both receive subsidies but passenger rail in the US receives little support.
> Because those were profitable investments! Passenger rail isn't, at least not outside of the Acela corridor.
But we could have built passenger rail stations too and those also would have been profitable.
> Amtrak itself is a big gubmint jobs program (subsidy). When it comes to ATC/TSA, I'm very much in favor of some combination of privatization and user fees; the airline sector could easily afford them.
Less so than the airline industries though. But I’m not complaining about subsidies, only that if we are subsidizing airlines we should subsidize rail too. Otherwise how do we have competition?
> Sure; the US doesn't have the population density for that to be the case outside of the Acela corridor though.
I’m not sure what corridor you are referring to, but yes we don’t, but it’s a chicken-egg problem. You’re describing current state and I’m interested in a better state.
> But we could have built passenger rail stations too and those also would have been profitable.
You can't just build a rail station and expect anything to happen; you also have to build the railroad. And this is currently not a profitable investment in the United States.
> But I’m not complaining about subsidies, only that if we are subsidizing airlines we should subsidize rail too.
We do subsidize rail. That's what Amtrak is. We've been subsidizing it for 50 years now.
> > Sure; the US doesn't have the population density for that to be the case outside of the Acela corridor though.
> I’m not sure what corridor you are referring to, but yes we don’t
If you don't even know what Acela is, you literally don't know the first thing about passenger rail in the United States. Thanks for conceding my entire argument.
> starved of cash by politicians who want to kill it
I don’t think this is completely unreasonable. In FY20, Amtrak made $2.4B in revenue from riders and had $5B in costs.
I like trains and this post made me want to take a long ride. But the California Zephyr only serves 250k riders a year.
How much should politicians subsidize these trains? Is the money better spent subsidizing Disneyland?
I’m not sure what the right amount is, but I don’t think it’s really possible to spend the money that is needed given the costs and the utility. The only real hope is that one day population density will increase between Chicago and California so it becomes less costly to operate.
I don't think ridership on the Zephyr has much at all to do with population density --- it's hitting Reno, SLC, Denver, and Omaha on that route, too. The issue is that Amtrak is a terribly impractical way to get from Chicago to San Francisco; you're basically getting people to sign up for a vacation of spending an extended period of time on a train. I get why that appeals to some people, but it's obviously a pretty unappealing proposition for most people.
> The issue is that Amtrak is a terribly impractical way to get from Chicago to San Francisco
You are correct, and that's why most long distance routes don't have end-to-end riders as the main customers. In 2019, for example, Chicago to/from Emeryville (endpoints of the train) was the 4th most popular city pair. The station with the most people embarking/disembarking is Denver. I suspect end-to-end ridership isn't lower on the Zephyr because it's a big tourist draw for the portion through the Rockies.
One of the most salient stats for me is that over half of trip (53%) are less than 500 miles. Trains excel in the too short to fly or too long to take the bus (for me, that's about 2 hours) segment.
That sums it up, I rode the coastliner wen as sot up to +$5 in 2008 and I had to be tere by 6am to et to my destination at 10:30am; if I had nothing to worry about it mit ave been a pleasant experience. As the author indicates, you an meet lots of people on these trips, at first I met lots of travelers/tourists and made plans to meet up later in the week as I was being dropped off in San Diego marina every day so it was a large hub, the problem was I was waking up at 5am and getting home at 11pm most of the week which meant that my trips were usually a way to et a nap before leading into my next location and doing another 7 our stint.
Often I set an alarm on my flip phone, but Id sleep right through it and stressed I had miss my stop only to find out we were just delayed yet again for x reason.
I also did the trip from Colorado to California several times, and I eve wrote a pilot for a dining car tv show I wanted to pitch. It's pretty stunning to see, but after the 12t hour you start to realize that maybe you really should have just gotten a plane after all if you have something or somewhere to be.
I rode te train all over Europe as well, DB/Trenitalia/SBB and had a halb tax for the first year, but after the romanticism wore off I soon realized that cheap flights were a better option wit bus trips in between as my time commitments became more pressing.
I rode the Coast Starlight north through the Sierra Nevadas(?) 15-20 years ago. It was a 24hour trip, and I was delayed 24hours. We hit a pedestrian then an avalanche had us back up 2-3 hours until a Greyhound picked us up and took us the rest of the way.
My understanding is this is sadly not as rare as you would hope around level crossings. Likewise with trains hitting cars on the tracks.
Some crossings have gates which make this much less likely, others do not and rely on flashing lights and the train horn to warn people of an approaching train.
A friend of mine works at a law firm that exclusively handles train injury cases. It happens a LOT more than you'd expect, primarily at crossings. Hearing-handicapped or people blasting their speakers who don't hear the horn; faulty crossing gates; distracted drivers; and so on.
It happens all the time in Vietnam and they constantly have it in the news. The people there don't have the culture to wait for anything... to the point where people try to get onto an elevator before everyone has gotten off already. It is mindless. Railroad crossings are no different and will just go around or ignore the crossing gates...
A relative was considerably delayed a couple of times on NE Corridor trips by the trains hitting pedestrians. Both apparently were suicides.
And persons not out to end their lives occasionally do, crossing a train track where the view is obstructed in one direction or another. Cars try to make it across the track a few seconds too late.
> I always feel like my vacation starts after I endure the entire airport + plane experience
Your whole comment brought back so many great memories for me, but this hits the nail on the head. I've only done one long train ride but the experience was so great that I'm eager to do it again. Being able to take a shower and lie down at night was a game changer - I slept so well. For me it was sort of a working trip in that I brought my laptop and did some emailing and light development, but I spent way more time just looking out the window and relaxing.
Your writing reminded me of this music video. The artist noted how during the pandemic he was captivated by train videos (like the first person videos of city walks/rides):
I have taken the Coast Starlight multiple times. Unfortunately once I tried it with my wife who hated it. Granted we got the cheapest sleeper car option (roomette) but she found it far from comfortable. She'd rather take a flight and be done with the trip sooner.
So, do normal people not feel like they’re going to throw up literally the entire train ride? I had a hard time taking a half hour train ride, much less a long one, but I also have a hard time being in the back seat of someone else’s car. I feel like they must not because it’s very seldom talked about.
But googling it says 1 in 3 people experience motion sickness. Maybe mine is just really severe? Without Dramamine or meclazine I’m hopeless on a train.
I find it pretty unsettling how many people are raving about travel by train. If your standards are insanely low then I suppose you can say the food is good, dining with random people is fun and the cabins are comfortable.
> Of course, the train trip will be longer so, tradeoffs.
If you count everything in, a high speed train is faster or close enough (but compensating with much higher levels of comfort and most of the time being spent in the train itself, not separated in travel to airport, queuing there, wasting time there, boarding, flying, disembarking, waiting for luggage, travel from airport) with air travel less than 3 hours.
I don't, but if you're upstairs you'll notice the "inverted pendulum swaying effect" much more. I slightly prefer downstairs roomettes on Amtrak for this reason, even though they may be a bit noisier. It doesn't make me sick but it's distracting when I'm trying to sleep.
That's an American problem. The Amtrack sleeper I went on was much much more shaky than any of the trains I have been on in Europe or Asia (except for maybe a commuter train in Norway). I think it has something to do with running trains on rails with hundred year old wooden ties.
Also, in europe (Or at least austria) the trains are timed to line up with buses for the most part. Which makes commuting a breeze. Oh and they are mostly on time.
Yup. Experienced this in Switzerland when heading to a mountain village. 2 trains and 2 buses, all with 3 to 5 minute connections. Has worked flawlessly every time I've tried it so far.
I'm perfectly comfortable on a train but also don't see why you're being downvoted. If you have a problem, you have a problem. That's too bad. Me, I knew a person with an inner ear disorder that caused dizziness, who had no problem on trains. And on the other hand, I knew a dog who threw up in any car. So you encounter all kinds of things, it seems.
I've heard that seasickness is caused by a mismatch between what the vestibular system senses, and what the eyes sense. So, on a boat, you don't go belowdecks; you go up top and keep your eyes on the horizon. I wonder if even just looking out the window more would be of any help to you.
I did this once (different trip, but similar distance) and freaking hated it. The beautiful buildings in downtown are full of vagrants and the restaurants there suck. The train kept being stopped to let freight go first on single track sections. On the return trip our train was 90 minutes late and there was absolutely nothing to do in the station while waiting. Americans don't know how to do trains right.
Just talking about my experience in cities like Los Angeles - grand buildings, little passenger traffic, many people there sitting around like they're just using the station as shelter.
Well you can thank white flight for that! Those Greyhound and Union Stations used to be magnificent back in the day. As the city declined in favor of the suburb, so too did these stations.
I find train travel so much better in Asia or Europe. I can’t really find it enjoyable in the states, even for a short jaunt from Portland to Seattle (though it still makes sense vs flying). I did a 3 night hard sleeper from Shanghai to Urumqi once, and the scenery was nice, I can’t imagine it being that nice in the states even with a better bed (hard sleepers are a bit cheap).
> I can’t imagine it being that nice in the states
Depends what part of the US you’re going through! East Coast, sure, the train scenery might be a bit plain. But the Mountain West is absolutely gorgeous. And the Coast Starlight goes right along the California coast, hugging cliffs the entire way - it’s completely surreal. I believe that the scenery is nice along that route in China, but if you think the US doesn’t have anything that can match it, you haven’t seen the US.
I live in the west coast now so I know the scenery is great. But the train experience just isn’t there. The food isn’t good (well, nowhere near boxed dinners and the dining car on a Chinese K/Z train), there are lots of delays (Chinese trains run on time), and you are offloaded at stations along the way (you can step off for 5 minutes at big cities, but that’s risky and you don’t need to get off until you hit your destination…3 days).
Understandable, I used to take a K train twice every year before my grandparents passed away. I could always manage to get a seat as my route was less busy. It's certainly not a enjoyable experience.
However, I'd recommend to try again with the high speed trains. Chinese railway has changed a lot in the last 15 years. 5 hours between Beijing and Shanghai (that's more than 1200 km), on time, comfortable seats and quick transit to city center.
Or alternativly the sleeper trains, depart at night and get to destination in the morning, easily fits schedule and save one day of hotel. The comfortableness is a bit less than European's standard unless on the newest trains, though.
I always did that route overnight in either hard or soft sleeper. But these days that route is HSR so you are only on it 4 or so hours anyways, I’m pretty sure the HSRs do not sell no seat tickets. I don’t think they offer the overnight train between BJ and SH anymore, but I could be wrong.
Agree. That’s why when I’m in Europe I just train everywhere. Milan Paris? Fuck it I’ll take the 5h train. It’s so chill and nice and I’m door to door.
Another vote for the Milan or Barcelona to Paris trains. I've taken them multiple times over the plane, even though on theory the plane is faster (but in practice it usually isn't if you count all the time wasted in getting to and from airports, the security checks etc.). Added bonus for Milan - Paris is that it passes through the Alps and has a few stops high up with magnificent views.
Funny, I feel the exact same way about driving. We normally travel to visit family in Poland over christmas(we live in the UK), but the thought of airports and air travel around christmas is filling me with such dread, that we decided to drive this year - and it was glorious. Yes it took us nearly 3 days instead of 2 hours by plane, but I would do that again in a heartbeat. Overnight ferry to Amsterdam, then one hop to a hotel in Germany, then finally drive to family in Poland - it was great, pretty relaxing, and much much much less stressful than flying. I've done the drive across many times before, but now we decided to have a stop in the middle(we have a kid now, so didn't want to spend 12h+ in the car in one day) and it made the whole trip much more relaxed. We stopped in some small German village, had a look around their christmas market, went for proper German good in a tiny gesthaus.....just brilliant.
> The staff and the whole process is very laid back without all of the security theatre nonsense of the TSA. It's about as formal as going to a play.
Note that TSA is working to change this. They've wanted to add airport-style security at all train stations for a while now. If we ever have a shooting on an Amtrak train it'll happen right away.
I don't think my heart could take it if that happened. Much of the majesty of taking Amtrak is being able to show up to the station in the downtown core minutes before departure and simply hop on the train, and then hop back off in the downtown core of your destination. I would take arriving at Moynihan Train Hall over JFK ten times out of ten. If they made it an undignified time-consuming hassle I might think to myself, "eff it, megabus is so much cheaper."
Pretty sure this would instantly kill off what remains of rail travel. Its big advantage in the Northeast is that you don't have to account for the unpredictable time to make it through security like you do for air travel, so the times often even out anyway. Remove that advantage and you've just driven a stake into Amtrak.
> I loved it. It's hard to convey how different it is from flying.
> Then you get on the train and you get to completely relax. I brought a book to read and some stuff like that, but I spent more than half the time literally just looking out the windows.
One of my dreams was doing a transcontinental train trip in the US, and in the months before our child was born, my wife sensibly let me know that "now" was a great time to do it, so I took a 10 day trip around the country that would start in Boston and end in San Antonio, where my wife was traveling for work.
As it turned out, her trip was cancelled, so I made a round trip:
Boston -> Washington DC -> Chicago -> Sacramento -> Los Angeles -> Chicago (via Texas) -> Boston.
The trip took 10 days and nights, 7 of which were on the train. I loaded my Zune with as many Sopranos episodes and movies as it would carry, and had some books to pass away the time. I'm pretty sure I made it through about 30 minutes of one Sopranos episode. I went to bed near dusk, awoke and showered at dawn, and spent the rest of the time chatting with folks in the lounge or diner, or watched the world go by from my room. Total cost at the time was $1800 for the entire trip, including hotels and meals for non-train nights.
One moment really stood out to me. We were in the Nevada desert somewhere (this is early 2000's, so no smart phone or GPS for me), and I didn't know where I was, what time it was, or even what day it was. What I did know was that I had a 5pm dinner in the dining car. It was, by several orders of magnitude, the most relaxed I've ever been in my entire life.
Time and life move differently from the overnight train. When a leg of your trip is a 24 or 48 hour end-to-end journey, a couple hours delay on either end doesn't make much of a difference. Seeing the US from this perspective is amazing, from fields to factories to mountains to deserts to valleys and everything else.
>Taking a sleeper car train ride isn't cheap in terms of time or money, but I would highly recommend it. I can't wait to do it again.
I have the benefit of in-laws living in FL in a town that has a train stop, so I managed to convince my family to take the train one time. They liked it, though they did think it got a little long in the end. However, given that our last trip via an airline took 20 hours, including sleeping on benches in an airport, I might be able to convince them to take the train again. Being late isn't fun, but it's far more palatable in a conveyance where you have your own room, can get up and walk around, and has both seated dining and a cafe.
In college my friend and I took the Amtrak from Austin, TX to NYC for New Year’s Eve. The journey took 50 hours riding in coach plus an 8 hour layover in Chicago. Amazing memories and a fun way to see the country.
i did almost the same trip in the 90s, as a newly-arrived foreigner in the USA. NYC --> Chicago --> Little Rock. as you say, amazing memories and a great way of seeing your new home [country]!
I've taken this same trip (although I started from DC and then jumped on the Southwest Chief in Chicago) and echo that it is a blast. I'm from the U.S. but most of my train trips have been in Europe (Mariupol - Lviv, Budapest - Berlin, Bucharest - Chisinau being some that stand out). The characters you meet on U.S. trains are a bit different, its full of people who have made a choice to be there given that air travel is often cheaper (than a sleeper car anyways) and way faster and given rates of car ownership in the U.S. Be prepared for lots of conversations (if you want them) with a broad cast of characters from train lovers to nervous flyers to probable drug dealers (okay this one is just speculation but got strong 'avoiding TSA vibes' from a couple of people). Much of the scenery you pass by isn't stuff you'd put on a postcard, but it opens your mind to just how vast America really is.
Overall, highly recommend anyone to do it if they've got a few days -- the next time I go I will probably splurge on a sleeper car instead of just sleeping in a seat in my jeans (okay for 1-2 days but tough for day 3)
You'll adore the California Zephyr. The passage through the high, snowy ravines in the Rockies and beyond into the painted deserts of Utah and Nevada is a glorious sight to behold. However, if you have a choice, get on in Denver rather than Chicago, unless you're keen to spend 20 hours marveling at the endless ocean of corn blanketing Iowa and Nebraska.
The OP is from Europe so there was probably some novelty to the 20 hours of endless corn the first time. But, yeah, once is enough. Having driven cross country several times for various reasons, the only appeal of the run from Chicago to Denver at this point is that you can do 100mph without much worry and get through it that much quicker.
I will say both Des Moines and Omaha are surprisingly nice to visit even as an awful "coastal elitist". Had some wonderful experiences in both.
My train got stuck behind a very slow moving freight train while crossing Nevada. With a GPS app, I tracked our speed at 2 MPH for nearly 30 minutes. I don't believe we ever exceeded 30 MPH at any time between SLC and Reno. I'd look out a window and see cars and trucks speeding along at 80 MPH on nearby I-80 while we were creeping along 20. And, of course, we were already 2-3 hours behind schedule. We ended up arriving in Emeryville 3.5 hours after the expected arrival time.
I think I recognize that section of Chicago's train station from my favorite scene of all time. That shootout scene from the movie The Untouchables. Correct me if I am wrong.
I took the 2 day train from Vancouver to Winnipeg, on the first night I had some
Of the next conversations and ended up with a friend for the whole journey. All while sailing through the snow capped mountains. I would do it again I’m a heartbeat.
Interesting! Your link suggests that legally passenger trains are supposed to have priority, but that in practice freight trains are given priority.
I didn't know this, and it makes me even madder! But as far as an explanation for why Amtrak trains are so often delayed (which is how it appeared in OP?), it appears to be correct that it's because freight trains are given priority. It's just that... they're not supposed to be, right?
At least according to Amtrak? I wonder if anyone has a third-party analysis of what's going on? I'm surprised I've never heard this before, thank you for bringing it up.
> The leading cause of delay to Amtrak passengers is “freight train interference”...
> ...Myth: “Amtrak already has the highest priority of all trains on freight rail lines.”
> Truth: Freight trains represent the largest cause of delay to passengers.
The TLDR is that most of the US is single tracked and the freight trains are bigger than the passenger train has to wait even if it has priority because the freight train is too big to wait.
Also, because Wall Street is so obsessed with making the balance sheets as efficient as possible, they have pretty much no interest in capital improvements like longer sidings or additional tracks.
It's worse than that. They have a specific interest in not having longer sidings. The companies that own the tracks own the freight trains, so longer sidings would be worse since then their trains would have to yield.
There is something called "Precision Scheduled Railroading" (PSR) which ultimately means that freight trains are longer than they used to be. (https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-105420) The result is that these long trains (even 3 miles long) can't fit on sidings, which means that they can't practically give way to, say, Amtrak, when there's only a single track. (Which is a lot of routes!)
In other words, freight rail has optimized very hard on saving costs, and since they own the tracks, there's not much Amtrak can do to win.
I think the only real solution is dedicated, grade-separated tracks for passenger trains (ideally high speed), but that's unfortunately a pipe dream :(
The real solution is to eliminate private ownership of track. Corporate-owned track makes as much sense as corporate-owned highways, ie none. The rails should belong to the people, and companies allowed to use them as the government allows, not the other way around.
Britain seems to have a better system than the US. In the US the rails are privately owned, but the train service is operated by the government. In Britain the rails are owned by the state but the operators are private. That seems to make for a better experience.
Britain has gone through regular and repeated crises with their trains, and pretty much the entire system went bankrupt during COVID. The government paid what it took to keep it going, but it's not a smooth system by any means. Even during what people would consider the heyday of British Rail, it still required significant and ongoing government subsidies:
Better only in narrow relative terms. The privatised trains are a disaster of Tory politics and renationalisation is a vote winning proposal. The lines which gave most problems have been resumed by the state in some cases.
I miss BR. Bit of a shame it was Jimmy Saville voicing "this is the age of the train"
Rail demands subsidy. Public utility functions often do.
I would say the exact opposite. Eliminate government ownership of the trains. The government is not "the people". It's a monopoly maintained by violence.
This is a good summary. The other element is that Amtrak only gets priority if they stay to their schedule. They have a slot where they are expected, and have full priority. However, if they get delayed, and miss their slot, then another train will get in front of them, and then they're further delayed, etc., etc. The dispatchers can give them priority when there are two trains waiting to enter a segment, but that doesn't help if the segment is 90 miles long, Amtrak would run it in an hour at 90mph, but the freight train that left 20 minutes ago at 45mph is going to be in that segment for 2 hours total. Nothing Amtrak can do will allow it to be passed, especially if the freight is longer than any sidings that are available for enforcement.
Some additional enforcement might help, but in the end, with most of the network having large single-track sections, and the long trains of PSR, it's just not a network built for timeliness. About 50% of the train load in America is bulk commodities of one form or another (Coal, stone, grain, etc.) All of these commodities are generally stable and non-spoilable. Thus, the customers don't really care much about punctuality. A power plant can maintain some hours or days of inventory in a big pile next to the plant. If the train with the next load of coal is 8 hours late, it has little impact, you just dig a little deeper into the pile before it's refreshed. 8 hours is a big difference to passengers.
Is it impossible to expand the sidings? Maybe make them 5 miles long? Sure it's not free, but it doesn't seem like it should be outrageously expensive. Is this just classic underinvestment in infrastructure coming back to bite you in the butt?
Yeah, the main issue is mostly that the network is designed for lowest-cost, non-time-sensitive freight, and fast, time-sensitive Amtrak trains inevitably get stuck behind something slow, or waiting for something slow to clear from the other direction. A passenger-first network would look like Japan, with lots of double-track, few sharp turns, etc. It would cost more overall too.
With all the lawyers in this country you’d think one of them on the train would use their hours long delay to assemble a law suit against the freight rail companies. What an insulting deal for taxpayers!
The problem is that the DoJ is the one with the power to enforce said regulations, and DoJ is about as interested as a patrol officer being asked to do parking enforcement.
There have been bills to allow Amtrak to file civil suits but as far as I know they haven’t passed.
While technically true, that law is never enforced, so in practice OP's statement is sadly correct. Wendover Productions made a great video [0] explaining this situation.
I did the SF - Truckee train with my son during the summer. We got a roomette type of accommodation. The food was OK, the trip overall was pretty nice. But for the price, I'm not sure I would do it again. The train was "not clean" (there was a dirty used towel inside the bathroom), the room had some crumbles and overall it was not dirty, but it was clearly not properly cleaned. At least not to the level that I would've expected for the cost.
I might try other route just to give trains a shot again. I like the concept and the space and how comfortable is the ride, but SF - Truckee, I'm not sure I would do it again.
Regular seat on the route is like $50 and you can hang out in the dining and observation cars. I took it to Reno and then took a shuttle to south lake. Was nice!
I highly recommend the Coast Starlight from Santa Barbara to San Luis Obispo (or the other way around). The train goes through Vandenberg AFB and a lot of private property, where you cannot otherwise generally go. Just beautiful.
If, as so many are here, you’re in the Bay Area, the Coast Starlight from San Jose is a great way to travel down to LA or up to Portland or Seattle. It’ll take a while - but the trip, and the scenery, are part of the point.
As a caveat: try not to do it around the holidays, though. Very busy and very little scenery in the PNW due to shortened days.
...and also sometimes you'll get a passenger who talks about chemtrails, a concessions stand worker who's Officially Had Enough Bullshit, a locomotive that stops working, and someone dying of a heart attack in the middle of nowhere. But I'd like to think that these are more exceptional circumstances.
You can minimize this by booking a room in a sleeper car and/or moving around or going to the observation car - if it’s not too busy to do so.
I have had some interesting tablemates in the restaurant car though - they always fill all seats so you never know who you’ll be sitting next to for a meal! In retrospect maybe that actually was part of the charm too?…
265 comments
[ 1.7 ms ] story [ 291 ms ] threadHah! The credit card rewards ruined these. Now they're all crowded and it's just as hard to find a seat as it is outside the lounge. Plus the food in them isn't that great anymore. The best benefit is usually a better view out the window. Real frequent fliers just get PreCheck+Clear and arrive at the airport closer to departure time.
I did this same train journey myself back in 2012. Great memories! I just wish 2 things:
1) Amtrak wouldn't recycle the air on train carriages, it gets really stuffy. The downstairs washroom smells get mixed in too.
2) Single riders should be given both seats on these journeys. I was like 19 when I did this journey and an unusual middle aged lady was placed next to me. She kept asking me for medicines and fell asleep on my shoulder.
Riding through the desert outside of Albuquerque during sunset was the highlight. Walk all the way to the back of the train, look at the back window, get a rare listen of the jointed (not welded) tracks. Here's my video of it -https://vimeo.com/57261056
on one hand, I get it -- that experience would drive me nuts and I have had similar stuff occur.
On the other hand , I've had a few good conversations with row-mates in planes.
the forced interaction is getting more and more rare; personally I think it's fun to be taken out of my comfort zone and be shoved into it once in awhile -- plus Amtrak tickets don't need any more excuses to be as poorly priced as possible.
The first time I had to travel for work after having kids was maybe the first time I'd actually enjoyed flying since pre-9/11. My point here isn't to crap on my kids, I love them dearly. But boy do they adjust your perception of everything.
Put on a headset (not earbuds) and most will take the hint. I’ve endured too many forced conversations on planes and trains, but not since I started doing that.
I was the opposite of you; I was the young man who fell asleep on the shoulder of the woman next to me. She was nice about it but it was really embarrassing! Sleepers were cheaper, then, too, so I didn't save much by riding coach.
The conversation with one of my breakfast table partners was the trip highlight. He was an elderly widower whose ride cross-country was a gift from his family. Good storyteller and he was pleased that I was happy to join him at his table, as opposed to a couple other introverts who scanned the dining car and left in a panic.
While I don't disagree with you, the seats in the lounges are still more comfortable than anything outside the lounges. Probably the only thing I still try them for at this point... maybe stronger wifi, depending on the airport.
Source: https://www.amtrak.com/coronavirus
We've only done the Lamy<->Chicago section of the Chief, but the timing is so great for that: depart both places mid-afternoon, arrive 25 hrs later (delays notwithstanding).
Amtrack is really going downhill.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnUGY7Y8trc
-- All jokes aside: I discovered how great the long distance west bound trains are through the Empire Builder train. It's great, it s peaceful, and it's relaxing. Also, it's a heck of a lot better than the OBB nightjet trains.
Memorable travel, not just memorable destinations.
> economy ... gets you no access to the observation car
This wasn't true many years ago. Is this a recent change? Maybe Covid related to keep the amount of contacts down?
Also if you're in coach, you can still reserve a spot in the dining car and pay for your meal (or at least you could). I did that a few times over the course of a trip. Lots of weird characters in coach, for better and for worse. But at least you know why the train is stopped in a crossing to let Amtrak police board, or who the FBI agents are looking for.
I'd describe taking the train as like a condensed driving trip. If you've got a few days to spare getting to your destination, but not the month required for a full cross country road trip, it's definitely worth doing!
> Also, economy does not include meals in the dining car and gets you no access to the observation car.
I'm pretty sure observation cars are open to all passengers, regardless of ticket status. Certainly nobody's ever asked me for a ticket when going into one.
Hope you enjoyed your Malort.
As someone who's done the Crescent (30 hours) and City of New Orleans + Lake Shore Limited (38 hours + layover) on Economy, you get about the same comfort sleeping, just none of the privacy. The seats in Economy are close to the ones in the bedrooms, you just can't lay them completely flat.
What you're paying $1,000 for is privacy and access to a shower.
Also:
> You can get a bedroom or roomette on an Amtrak sleeper car. A roomette fits two people, with the second person having to sleep on a bunk bed contraption under the room’s ceiling. I was going alone on this trip, and a roomette seemed to be the best choice.
The standard bedroom also sleeps two, and all Amtrak beds are "bunk bed contraptions". The bedroom gets you an in-room shower.
Indeed, there are four types of bedrooms:
- bedroom (seat and sofa that convert to beds, in-room shower)
- bedroom suite (two adjoining bedrooms, including both in-room bathrooms)
- family bedroom (4 seats that fold to beds, using the roomette shower shared with the car)
- accessible bedroom (larger wheelchair-friendlier roomette with its own sink, using the roomette shower shared with the car)
> I didn’t care much about which side of the train I was on because the scenery is very similar, no matter which way you look. This is more important if you take a train along the coastline
If you're on a north-south route, sunrises and sunsets matter a lot, not just for viewing but also determining when you wake up and go to sleep.
> I was happy to learn that Chicago has a decent public transit system.
I mean... which one? ;) Glad he did a shot of Malört before he left though, and Union Station is beautiful.
> I immediately noticed a lot of Amish people sitting in the large hall. This is because travel by plane is considered too modern and travel by train appears to be very popular amongst them.
They might've been Mennonites or Hutterites, who are also Anabaptists but don't have Amish rules on public electrical grids or motorized vehicles.
> I had a 7pm reservation and walked over to the car right in front of mine, the restaurant car. Because space is limited, you will sit with other passengers at tables holding 4 people. ... This is why the food is surprisingly delicious.
Some context: This traditional Amtrak dinner service is very recently back after several years of being cut, especially on the west coast. Availability varies by route and ticket type. It used to be on almost all long routes and available to coach passengers too; it might be back for coach passengers on some routes by now, it's been in the works on eastern trains since 2021.
> I spent almost the entire day in the observation car
This is really the key. The observation car, if your line has one, is the best part of the trip.
> For dinner, we closed the place down. The friendly staff had a bottle of wine to empty, and we were there, talking until almost midnight.
This is the thing too, unlike planes where the crews turn over pretty often between flights, a train line's crew is often on for the whole ride and pretty regular. You can get to know them pretty well if you make the effort, and they'll often remember you if you take the same route again.
I'm from Houston. I'll take any public transport. ;)
And meals, which are included in the fare for sleeper cars but not economy.
I'm sure you know that, but not everyone who reads your comment will. Whether this comment was soon enough to be useful, idk.
Best advice if meals are meaningful is to ask before you book.
But really, after recent air travel, I’m like who wants to fly when they can take Amtrak?
A sleeper car sounds posh, but 5x the cost, can you travel first class if you're able to nap on a plane typically?
Also at the time we traveled coach folks were allowed access to the observation car which was great to switch your environment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4ztWNJYFrU
The greatest train song of all time. Arlo Guthrie talking about how Steve came to him with that song:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZx7xCK6yfo. (at 2:09)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aj3hyNspyDM
That city of New Orleans song was great but his ‘would you like to learn to dance’ was hauntingly beautiful.
And such a tragic loss so young.
I'm not crying. You're crying.
Otherwise, have a great trip, don't be attached to arriving on time, and enjoy that observation car!
They still aren’t offering access, and at this point, it doesn’t seem like it will return.
You’re limited to what you bring with you, or the snack car which is essentially a vending machine
However I think it is a mistake to focus on profitability here. These trains are a public utility, and should be treated as such. We are spending way more money into maintaining the super inefficient transportation system of private automobiles, and you are paying for it even if you don’t own a car your self, that is both thorough direct taxes, but also in increased property/rent prices to accommodate parking, or with the climate disaster.
Ideally I wouldn’t mind Amtrak canceling most of these routes if they were replaced by something better.
I think many shorter but well connected routes throughout these corridors would be better (I mean, one train a day between Seattle and Spokane is not enough). For example, if the Coast Starlight had it’s infrastructure upgraded, tracks straightened with overhead electrical wires, would interline with future Cascadia High Speed Rail to Eugene, run through Medford (as opposed to Klamath Falls) and finally stop in Sacramento where you could transfer to the future California High Speed Rail if you wanted to continue to LA or the Capitol Corridor to San Francisco. This would be way better then a single Coast Starlight train a day between Seattle and LA in 36 hours.
This may have been the case in the past, but with the Dining Cars not allowing coach customers, and their high labor costs for on-board staff, they are losing money badly right now. It might get better if they can get Coach passengers back in, but for the time being, it's still a money pit.
The Northeastern Corridor is their most profitable section, as the ridership is much higher and they own their own tracks.
What could they do to become profitable? Not sure. Assuming they magically got their own set of tracks for free, they then wouldn't have to pay the railroads for using theirs. But they'd have to pay to maintain all that right-of-way (tracks, bridges, tunnels, signals, etc.) At least they'd be on time though (not blocked by massively long freight trains like they are today).
Where is this bad news? I think fuel taxes should be higher in the US for many reasons. I think Europe should convert much of their passenger rail to freight for environmental reasons.
43 hours for what would be a 4 hr flight plus it’s more expensive to boot.
So should such long distance train rides actually be compared to transit or golfing?
Greyhound as a de facto everywhere to everywhere bus service has declined as well.
Whenever I fly somewhere, especially these days when flying is such a miserable cramped experience, I always feel like my vacation starts after I endure the entire airport + plane experience. The whole travel part is in the same "chore" bucket as packing, finding a pet sitter, etc.
With a train, the second we reached the train station, it felt like the trip had started. Many train stations are beautiful historical buildings right in the heart of downtown, so you're already experiencing a city and cool architecture. The staff and the whole process is very laid back without all of the security theatre nonsense of the TSA. It's about as formal as going to a play.
Then you get on the train and you get to completely relax. I brought a book to read and some stuff like that, but I spent more than half the time literally just looking out the windows. Train tracks don't need much surrounding infrastructure, unlike freeways, so their routes often go right through little towns, along the coast, etc. You'll be seeing into people's backyards, storage area for businesses, farmland, everything. It's like a perfect cross-section of the entire US experience.
And it's quiet. No constant roar of engines like a jet. You can talk at quiet volumes. The observation car feels like a chill coffee shop with an amazing always-refreshing-itself view.
Time slows down. You watch the sun set and then watch the light leak out of the sky. You go to bed and get rocked to sleep.
Taking a sleeper car train ride isn't cheap in terms of time or money, but I would highly recommend it. I can't wait to do it again.
I was only in business class but that got me access to the dining car. Since I was alone they sat me with different people for each meal and the food was actually really good!
Of the 5 or 6 times I've taken Amtrak only once has the trip not been delayed or screwed up in a way that horribly affected the trip.
I would love to do more train travel but my experiences have been so bad I can't imagine doing it much more than I have to, especially when it's way more expensive and takes way longer than driving a car.
“We’ll get ya there…sometime.”
It’s not their fault. Passenger trains in the US run almost exclusively on freight lines.
They are high risk, low revenue…burdens(?) from that perspective.
I don’t have a big problem with it like travel, but it’s like a car. Should be used less frequently and walking (riding the train) should be more common.
We could built train stations instead of airports, for example.
Passenger rail (including its privately owned infrastructure, such as the railroads themselves) used to be profitable across the US and still is profitable in the Acela corridor and in densely populated parts of Europe and Asia. It stopped being profitable due to being outcompeted by airlines, which is why the US government nationalized it under Amtrak in the first place.
I don’t have a problem with airlines or anything but I don’t think we have the full competitive picture especially when we take into account the forced suburbanization of America which has all sorts of correlated problems.
For example an airport is “profitable” but there isn’t any reason train stations with similar infrastructure investment and overpriced shops couldn’t be profitable too. But also who cares if it’s profitable?
This is also true for trains.
> and saying that they are profitable is a bit rich given the history of bailouts and bankruptcies.
Airlines have been bailed out twice in recent history--during the COVID pandemic and shortly after 9/11. In contrast, Amtrak has operated at a loss, subsidized by American taxpayers, virtually every single year since its inception. Rather than being occasionally bailed out during emergencies of historic scale, Amtrak has been continually bailed out for the past half century.
Yes, some airlines have gone bankrupt. We should let Amtrak do the same if they can't build a sustainable business after over 50 years. If they can carry out a Chapter 11 bankruptcy and restructure into a successful, profitable venture (which is entirely possible if they focus on Acela), more power to them.
> For example an airport is “profitable” but there isn’t any reason train stations with similar infrastructure investment and overpriced shops couldn’t be profitable too.
In some places, train stations are profitable, and I have no desire to interfere with them. American passenger train stations were profitable for a very long time until they were largely rendered obsolete.
> But also who cares if it’s profitable?
American taxpayers who don't want to subsidize whimsical nostalgia tourism.
We subsidize all sorts of whimsical nostalgia. I don’t find that to be a compelling argument.
> This is also true for trains.
Not really because passenger rail in the US is so small as to be negligible. Of course I’d it were to expand to something like the capacity of airlines then yes we would have to evaluate. Hard to see how it’s not cheaper though especially when accounting for other infrastructure changes that are required (fewer cars and less government waste from needless highway construction, appropriate density).
> Airlines have been bailed out twice in recent history--during the COVID pandemic and shortly after 9/11. In contrast, Amtrak has operated at a loss, subsidized by American taxpayers, virtually every single year since its inception. Rather than being occasionally bailed out during emergencies of historic scale, Amtrak has been continually bailed out for the past half century. > Yes, some airlines have gone bankrupt. We should let Amtrak do the same if they can't build a sustainable business after over 50 years. If they can carry out a Chapter 11 bankruptcy and restructure into a successful, profitable venture (which is entirely possible if they focus on Acela), more power to them.
The problem here is you are comparing apples to oranges.
The subsidy argument doesn’t work because I’m not arguing that airlines or rail shouldn’t be subsidized at all, but that your claim about profitability is marginal because they’re all subsidized.
The Amtrack is never profitable argument by comparison doesn’t work because we haven’t built rail stations for passenger transit that compare to the airlines we built.
> In some places, train stations are profitable, and I have no desire to interfere with them. American passenger train stations were profitable for a very long time until they were largely rendered obsolete.
The stations themselves are perfectly fine from a profitability perspective. They don’t require runways or ATC or the TSA which is a big gubmint jobs program (subsidy) and they can operate all the same stores, restaurants, and other facilities that an airport can and maybe more.
You are right that trains became obsolete in some ways, but those advantages that airline infrastructure once had are and continuing to erode. Trains and pedestrian traffic can judo move airline and car-only infrastructure because they’re able to play a different game. For example today many people say airlines are great because they get you from A-B in 2 hours. But priorities and preferences change, and speed to destination and the hassle involved such as TSA, pre-check, expensive airport lounges, soon to be increasingly high fees and taxes and more expensive fuel, baggage hassle, required rental cars, etc. are all things that will be avoided by rail revival. You can see that this is the case because where rail effectively competes with airline travel rail tends to be preferred.
I don’t think transportation improvements will work in the current political climate in the US (don’t move my cheese!!) which saddens me because it sets us up for abrupt shocks to fragile and dependent infrastructure.
You're making a false equivalency here between a mostly profitable business sector that occasionally receives bailouts and an almost-completely unprofitable business sector that is continually bailed out.
> The Amtrack is never profitable argument by comparison doesn’t work because we haven’t built rail stations for passenger transit that compare to the airlines we built.
Because those were profitable investments! Passenger rail isn't, at least not outside of the Acela corridor.
> The stations themselves are perfectly fine from a profitability perspective. They don’t require runways or ATC or the TSA which is a big gubmint jobs program (subsidy) and they can operate all the same stores, restaurants, and other facilities that an airport can and maybe more.
Amtrak itself is a big gubmint jobs program (subsidy). When it comes to ATC/TSA, I'm very much in favor of some combination of privatization and user fees; the airline sector could easily afford them.
> You can see that this is the case because where rail effectively competes with airline travel rail tends to be preferred.
Sure; the US doesn't have the population density for that to be the case outside of the Acela corridor though.
But that’s what I’m trying to tell you, I’m not comparing them because the comparison doesn’t make sense when both receive subsidies but passenger rail in the US receives little support.
> Because those were profitable investments! Passenger rail isn't, at least not outside of the Acela corridor.
But we could have built passenger rail stations too and those also would have been profitable.
> Amtrak itself is a big gubmint jobs program (subsidy). When it comes to ATC/TSA, I'm very much in favor of some combination of privatization and user fees; the airline sector could easily afford them.
Less so than the airline industries though. But I’m not complaining about subsidies, only that if we are subsidizing airlines we should subsidize rail too. Otherwise how do we have competition?
> Sure; the US doesn't have the population density for that to be the case outside of the Acela corridor though.
I’m not sure what corridor you are referring to, but yes we don’t, but it’s a chicken-egg problem. You’re describing current state and I’m interested in a better state.
You can't just build a rail station and expect anything to happen; you also have to build the railroad. And this is currently not a profitable investment in the United States.
> But I’m not complaining about subsidies, only that if we are subsidizing airlines we should subsidize rail too.
We do subsidize rail. That's what Amtrak is. We've been subsidizing it for 50 years now.
> > Sure; the US doesn't have the population density for that to be the case outside of the Acela corridor though.
> I’m not sure what corridor you are referring to, but yes we don’t
If you don't even know what Acela is, you literally don't know the first thing about passenger rail in the United States. Thanks for conceding my entire argument.
I don’t think this is completely unreasonable. In FY20, Amtrak made $2.4B in revenue from riders and had $5B in costs.
I like trains and this post made me want to take a long ride. But the California Zephyr only serves 250k riders a year.
How much should politicians subsidize these trains? Is the money better spent subsidizing Disneyland?
I’m not sure what the right amount is, but I don’t think it’s really possible to spend the money that is needed given the costs and the utility. The only real hope is that one day population density will increase between Chicago and California so it becomes less costly to operate.
[0] page 4 https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/p...
It’s like if the cruise ship industry was subsidized with a few billion in funding each year.
You are correct, and that's why most long distance routes don't have end-to-end riders as the main customers. In 2019, for example, Chicago to/from Emeryville (endpoints of the train) was the 4th most popular city pair. The station with the most people embarking/disembarking is Denver. I suspect end-to-end ridership isn't lower on the Zephyr because it's a big tourist draw for the portion through the Rockies.
One of the most salient stats for me is that over half of trip (53%) are less than 500 miles. Trains excel in the too short to fly or too long to take the bus (for me, that's about 2 hours) segment.
That sums it up, I rode the coastliner wen as sot up to +$5 in 2008 and I had to be tere by 6am to et to my destination at 10:30am; if I had nothing to worry about it mit ave been a pleasant experience. As the author indicates, you an meet lots of people on these trips, at first I met lots of travelers/tourists and made plans to meet up later in the week as I was being dropped off in San Diego marina every day so it was a large hub, the problem was I was waking up at 5am and getting home at 11pm most of the week which meant that my trips were usually a way to et a nap before leading into my next location and doing another 7 our stint.
Often I set an alarm on my flip phone, but Id sleep right through it and stressed I had miss my stop only to find out we were just delayed yet again for x reason.
I also did the trip from Colorado to California several times, and I eve wrote a pilot for a dining car tv show I wanted to pitch. It's pretty stunning to see, but after the 12t hour you start to realize that maybe you really should have just gotten a plane after all if you have something or somewhere to be.
I rode te train all over Europe as well, DB/Trenitalia/SBB and had a halb tax for the first year, but after the romanticism wore off I soon realized that cheap flights were a better option wit bus trips in between as my time commitments became more pressing.
I rode the Coast Starlight north through the Sierra Nevadas(?) 15-20 years ago. It was a 24hour trip, and I was delayed 24hours. We hit a pedestrian then an avalanche had us back up 2-3 hours until a Greyhound picked us up and took us the rest of the way.
Adventure: Check
I didn’t mind one bit.
Great people.
Uh what?
Some crossings have gates which make this much less likely, others do not and rely on flashing lights and the train horn to warn people of an approaching train.
The cases almost always include a fatality.
https://e.vnexpress.net/photo/news/commuters-risk-their-live...
https://e.vnexpress.net/news/news/train-collides-with-tracto...
https://e.vnexpress.net/news/news/man-killed-crossing-train-...
And persons not out to end their lives occasionally do, crossing a train track where the view is obstructed in one direction or another. Cars try to make it across the track a few seconds too late.
Your whole comment brought back so many great memories for me, but this hits the nail on the head. I've only done one long train ride but the experience was so great that I'm eager to do it again. Being able to take a shower and lie down at night was a game changer - I slept so well. For me it was sort of a working trip in that I brought my laptop and did some emailing and light development, but I spent way more time just looking out the window and relaxing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpBO0RbLKJ0
But googling it says 1 in 3 people experience motion sickness. Maybe mine is just really severe? Without Dramamine or meclazine I’m hopeless on a train.
No, no issues with the motion at all. And absolutely none of that onboard a cruise ship for me either.
> But googling it says 1 in 3 people experience motion sickness. Maybe mine is just really severe?
That sounds to be the case. Perhaps discuss with your MD?
Of course, the train trip will be longer so, tradeoffs.
If you count everything in, a high speed train is faster or close enough (but compensating with much higher levels of comfort and most of the time being spent in the train itself, not separated in travel to airport, queuing there, wasting time there, boarding, flying, disembarking, waiting for luggage, travel from airport) with air travel less than 3 hours.
For example, I usually have a hard time reading when riding in a car, but not on a train.
I've heard that seasickness is caused by a mismatch between what the vestibular system senses, and what the eyes sense. So, on a boat, you don't go belowdecks; you go up top and keep your eyes on the horizon. I wonder if even just looking out the window more would be of any help to you.
In every single town along Amtrak routes in the United States?
Depends what part of the US you’re going through! East Coast, sure, the train scenery might be a bit plain. But the Mountain West is absolutely gorgeous. And the Coast Starlight goes right along the California coast, hugging cliffs the entire way - it’s completely surreal. I believe that the scenery is nice along that route in China, but if you think the US doesn’t have anything that can match it, you haven’t seen the US.
Ya, traveling without a seat is crazy hard.
However, I'd recommend to try again with the high speed trains. Chinese railway has changed a lot in the last 15 years. 5 hours between Beijing and Shanghai (that's more than 1200 km), on time, comfortable seats and quick transit to city center.
Or alternativly the sleeper trains, depart at night and get to destination in the morning, easily fits schedule and save one day of hotel. The comfortableness is a bit less than European's standard unless on the newest trains, though.
Note that TSA is working to change this. They've wanted to add airport-style security at all train stations for a while now. If we ever have a shooting on an Amtrak train it'll happen right away.
> Then you get on the train and you get to completely relax. I brought a book to read and some stuff like that, but I spent more than half the time literally just looking out the windows.
One of my dreams was doing a transcontinental train trip in the US, and in the months before our child was born, my wife sensibly let me know that "now" was a great time to do it, so I took a 10 day trip around the country that would start in Boston and end in San Antonio, where my wife was traveling for work.
As it turned out, her trip was cancelled, so I made a round trip: Boston -> Washington DC -> Chicago -> Sacramento -> Los Angeles -> Chicago (via Texas) -> Boston.
The trip took 10 days and nights, 7 of which were on the train. I loaded my Zune with as many Sopranos episodes and movies as it would carry, and had some books to pass away the time. I'm pretty sure I made it through about 30 minutes of one Sopranos episode. I went to bed near dusk, awoke and showered at dawn, and spent the rest of the time chatting with folks in the lounge or diner, or watched the world go by from my room. Total cost at the time was $1800 for the entire trip, including hotels and meals for non-train nights.
One moment really stood out to me. We were in the Nevada desert somewhere (this is early 2000's, so no smart phone or GPS for me), and I didn't know where I was, what time it was, or even what day it was. What I did know was that I had a 5pm dinner in the dining car. It was, by several orders of magnitude, the most relaxed I've ever been in my entire life.
Time and life move differently from the overnight train. When a leg of your trip is a 24 or 48 hour end-to-end journey, a couple hours delay on either end doesn't make much of a difference. Seeing the US from this perspective is amazing, from fields to factories to mountains to deserts to valleys and everything else.
>Taking a sleeper car train ride isn't cheap in terms of time or money, but I would highly recommend it. I can't wait to do it again.
I have the benefit of in-laws living in FL in a town that has a train stop, so I managed to convince my family to take the train one time. They liked it, though they did think it got a little long in the end. However, given that our last trip via an airline took 20 hours, including sleeping on benches in an airport, I might be able to convince them to take the train again. Being late isn't fun, but it's far more palatable in a conveyance where you have your own room, can get up and walk around, and has both seated dining and a cafe.
Overall, highly recommend anyone to do it if they've got a few days -- the next time I go I will probably splurge on a sleeper car instead of just sleeping in a seat in my jeans (okay for 1-2 days but tough for day 3)
I will say both Des Moines and Omaha are surprisingly nice to visit even as an awful "coastal elitist". Had some wonderful experiences in both.
By law, passenger travel is expected to have "precedence."
Read: https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/p...
I didn't know this, and it makes me even madder! But as far as an explanation for why Amtrak trains are so often delayed (which is how it appeared in OP?), it appears to be correct that it's because freight trains are given priority. It's just that... they're not supposed to be, right?
At least according to Amtrak? I wonder if anyone has a third-party analysis of what's going on? I'm surprised I've never heard this before, thank you for bringing it up.
> The leading cause of delay to Amtrak passengers is “freight train interference”...
> ...Myth: “Amtrak already has the highest priority of all trains on freight rail lines.”
> Truth: Freight trains represent the largest cause of delay to passengers.
In other words, freight rail has optimized very hard on saving costs, and since they own the tracks, there's not much Amtrak can do to win.
I think the only real solution is dedicated, grade-separated tracks for passenger trains (ideally high speed), but that's unfortunately a pipe dream :(
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rail_transport_in_G...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rail_transport_in_G...
And the subsidies given the the rail which were needed because of the governemt laws about not travelling were far lower than US subsidies.
I miss BR. Bit of a shame it was Jimmy Saville voicing "this is the age of the train"
Rail demands subsidy. Public utility functions often do.
Some additional enforcement might help, but in the end, with most of the network having large single-track sections, and the long trains of PSR, it's just not a network built for timeliness. About 50% of the train load in America is bulk commodities of one form or another (Coal, stone, grain, etc.) All of these commodities are generally stable and non-spoilable. Thus, the customers don't really care much about punctuality. A power plant can maintain some hours or days of inventory in a big pile next to the plant. If the train with the next load of coal is 8 hours late, it has little impact, you just dig a little deeper into the pile before it's refreshed. 8 hours is a big difference to passengers.
There have been bills to allow Amtrak to file civil suits but as far as I know they haven’t passed.
[0]: https://youtu.be/qQTjLWIHN74?t=07m40s
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/24308
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=24308&f=treesort&fq=...
I might try other route just to give trains a shot again. I like the concept and the space and how comfortable is the ride, but SF - Truckee, I'm not sure I would do it again.
...and also sometimes you'll get a passenger who talks about chemtrails, a concessions stand worker who's Officially Had Enough Bullshit, a locomotive that stops working, and someone dying of a heart attack in the middle of nowhere. But I'd like to think that these are more exceptional circumstances.
I have had some interesting tablemates in the restaurant car though - they always fill all seats so you never know who you’ll be sitting next to for a meal! In retrospect maybe that actually was part of the charm too?…