Amtrak is hard to ride

yeah... same problem here. the only line going to/from Oklahoma city is the heartland flyer to Dallas  then texas eagle from dallas to Chicago  capital limited from chicago to Pittsburgh then the pennsylvanian to lancaster pa. 52 hours- $309. more effiecent to just make the 24 hour drive

It's not news that Amtrak has been a whipping boy for budget cuts since forever. Some sadly misinformed members of Congress (mostly of the GOP variety) think it ought to be self-supporting. Of course, NO other passenger rail service in the world is self-supporting(and no other transportation system - including airlines - is either). There have been many times when Congress has tried to unfund Amtrak to death. It's a little better under this administration, but who knows what's going to happen.

So you get spotty service.

Because of what "breezinup" points out above, Amtrak is mainly a right coast service.

Alan

We used to have 3 Amtrak lines out of Utah to Vegas/SoCal (Desert Wind) , NoCal (Zephyr) and the Pacific Northwest (Pioneer)

We lost all but the Zephyr in the 90's. A couple years back there was a push from the surrounding state US Senators and House to get the line to the Pacific Northwest open. I tried multiple times to get the Utah legislators  on board but they wouldn't even consider it, got the same old subsidy whine

When you say Amtrak is mainly a right coast service, that is true. But that's only because that's where rail service makes sense. The east coast has short distances between major cities and high population density. Covering the wide open spaces isn't really economical, but we do it anyway.

Even St Paul to Chicago isn't that great. Depart about 7 AM, arrive Chicago around 3:30. Return trip, depart Chicago 2:30 PM Arrive about 10. For 2 adults, it's much cheaper to drive, plus we knock 2 hours off the time, and we have the car when we get there. And we can come and go when we want.

Sad but true.

Breezinup has summarized the situation well.  Amtrak is enjoyable, for the most part though, if it goes where you want to go.

I am fortunate that the Toledo station, is 35 minutes from my house to the station platform. The trains leave 6am westbound or 10pm eastbound. Four hours to Chicago or overnight to the east, Boston or DC. 75% of my travel is on Amtrak.     

Riding the Texas Eagle one time, I chatted with a nuclear powerplant inspector who was on his way to Buffalo, NY, on a job.  He always rides Amtrak to his work as much as is possible.  Nice irony, the older and the newer.

There are some great routes on the West Coast - we've taken Seattle - Oakland and Oakland - Denver... not the most efficient way to get from A to B, but treating it as a vacation day on the train it can be a great ride.

It's not news that Amtrak has been a whipping boy for budget cuts since forever

For nearly 40 years, Amtrak has NEVER been properly funded, by both a Democratic and Republican Congress. It is an embarassment at least, and an outright crime at best.

...like most of what Congress does not do, vote the a****les out.

Here is irony: I am a retired airline captain, and have lifetime free travel benefits on a major US carrier.  I would rather pay and go Amtrak.  It is so inconvenient and expensive and difficult to book that I either drive or take the Mooney.  I hate commerial airports and the hassle involved - we need rail transport.  Opinion.

The problem, Bob2, is that we don't have any money.  We're 16 trillion in debt and we spend several billion dollars a week (of which we have to borrow 40%) now.  Where do you expect money for rail transport to come from?  As was pointed out earlier, it's not going to support itself.

America is in for tough economic times.  It won't matter which political party is in power; we can't keep going on this way very much longer.

That's my opinion.  Does anybody out there have a better idea?  Where's the money going to come from?

EdKing

It used to be that you could take Amtrak straight from Jacksonville to New Orleans to Los Angeles. Now you have to go JAX-DC-CHI-LA. Nearly a 5 day trip.

And yes, JAX-ATL is pretty much a no-go.

Even JAX-Charlotte, you have to change trains in Raleigh.

I dont see any Amtrak riding in my future unless they actually go forward with their plan to run from JAX-MIA over the FEC. Then, maybe.

Don't expect any new routes very quickly, even if Amtrak would get a windfall.  The freight lines don't exactly want Amtrak on their lines, if not because of the operational pains they bring.  I believe recently when Amtrak proposed increasing some services in the West, UP wanted huge dollars to upgrade their infrastructure.  

About the only way new routes are being added is when states form partnerships with Amtrak and perhaps other states.  

I grew up in Columbus, Ohio.  We lost our Amtrak service quite quickly after the formation of Amtrak when the National Limited died.  My father and I would photograph the National in the late 1970's.  By the mid 1980's if I wanted to see an Amtrak train, I had to drive an hour north to Crestline.  

Today, I live in Bowie, MD, and my nine year old son and I hang out at the Bowie State MARC station on the NEC.  He thinks 110mph Amtrak trains are run of the mill and gets REALLY happy if we drive an extra 30 minutes to Laurel, MD where he can see CSX freight trains.  That's the bees knees for him!

Bob

I think it's really too late now.  Even if they were given massive funding and built routes everywhere, I doubt the public would take notice.  Probably most people aren't aware that passenger trains even still exist, and you'd have to convince them why this is better than flying on an airplane which is much faster for all but the shortest trips.  You can't rely on nostalgia being a big factor from the general public either.

Has passenger rail gotten hugely and unfairly screwed over for decades?  Yes, certainly.  But that doesn't mean it's still possible to recover it.

The only chance I'd see is if high speed auto rail were suddenly available to/from major cities.  While you may not replace planes, I think you'd have a very real chance of replacing long car trips if you could go faster on the rails, take your car with you, and be able to relax the entire trip in a roomier more comfortable environment with restrooms, tables to sit at, etc...  Saves you on hotel costs too for really long trips.  That's something that anyone can see the advantage in.  You only really need a skeleton set of tracks too, people can drive the last 30-60 minutes themselves since they BROUGHT THEIR CAR WITH THEM.

If Amtrak can't support themselves without tax payer money then go out of business. I have said this for any transportation entity. They may be under funded but who's fault is it, it's Amtrak. Union contracts they signed, work rules that they agreed to and a bloated front office are a big part of their problems. What is the reason for us tax payers to support them when they will not help themselves.

I love trains but I refuse to have my taxes go to a money pit. Same goes for allot of govt. funded entitys that should survive on their own.

This is interesting but I doubt it will ever get rolling.

Rail passenger service has been a low priority in national transportation policy. But it's OK to continue spending billions and trillions on highways?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dig

megaproject in Boston ... The Big Dig was the most expensive highway project in the U.S. and was plagued by escalating costs, scheduling overruns, leaks, design flaws ... estimated that the project will ultimately cost $22 billion, including interest, and that it will not be paid off until 2038.

I hadn't heard of All Aboard Florida before but it sounds interesting if it actually happens.  Extend the route up to Atlanta and I'm in!  I'd also like to see a branch to Ocala but that can wait I suppose.

How much profit does the US road network (highway or otherwise) make these days?  Enough to support itself without any funding?

Bingo!

Quote:

"The problem, Bob2, is that we don't have any money.  We're 16 trillion in debt and we spend several billion dollars a week (of which we have to borrow 40%) now.  Where do you expect money for rail transport to come from?  As was pointed out earlier, it's not going to support itself.

America is in for tough economic times.  It won't matter which political party is in power; we can't keep going on this way very much longer.

That's my opinion.  Does anybody out there have a better idea?  Where's the money going to come from?

EdKing"

As usual, Ed has it right~

I would like to make a prediction, however. I think sometime in the next four

years, you will see a big thrust by those in Washington for either a VAT tax,

or a national sales tax. Amtrak will not see any of that loot,either.

Once the free spenders in D. C. (no matter political party)  see how much revenue can be raised that way,

there will be no end to boosting the tax rate to fund more spending.

Lord help us then!

Ed M.

>>We're 16 trillion in debt and we spend several billion dollars a week (of which we have to borrow 40%) now.  Where do you expect money for rail transport to come from?

Oh, and toss in a few millions to clean up after Sandy!

>>Rail passenger service has been a low priority in national transportation policy. But it's OK to continue spending billions and trillions on highways?

How many voters own automobiles?  How many voters own railcars?  How many voters own neither?  Do the math!  Hey, this IS a Democracy.

The reason that Amtrak now has only a skeletal service is because the demand for train travel is not what it once was. You can no longer go directly from Chicago to Florida nor can you go from Florida to New Orleans, Atlanta or California as in the past. Many major cities like Lousiville, Nashville & Talahasee no longer have any train service. 

Todays passenger rail system is only a fraction of what it once was. The private railroads have no interest in it so far but if passenger rail demand continues to increase who knows?

FYI: 

Largest US city without direct Amtrak service:  Phoenix, AZ. (1.4 million)

(Thruway bus connects to Flagstaff)  Nearest Amtrak Station: Maricopa (34 mi).

Largest US City without Amtrak rail OR thruway bus service: Columbus OH, (797 thousand) Nearest Amtrak Station: Cincinatti (106 mi).

For what it's worth, an outsider's perspective. Every time I visit the US, I do some rail travel. When there recently, I went from NY to Orlando and return, coach class.

The trains ran to schedule, the coach seats were comfortable, they were in good condition, the toilets were not kept clean throughout the journey, the staff were friendly and the dining car was very nice, the food very good. The trains were pretty full too, so they are doing something right. (except the toilets).

Five toilets on the ground floor of a superliner car - no waiting.

I've used Amtrak periodically through the years and for the most part the service is pretty good - for the places that they go to. I did an 8900 mile tour all around the USA on Amtrak in 1998 and the long-distance trains all kept good time, with one exception.

I believe Australia and Canada have similar situations of reduced rail passenger services because the subsidy expenses are not politically popular.

It's kind of ironic that many railfans are all for more rail passenger service - but they don't or won't actually use it themselves.

I do not know about now, but 10 years ago you could ride trains all over Europe.

I rode from Bergen all the way down to Frankfurt, and then did the Glacier Express

around Switzerland.  Before that I had ridden trains out to Stonehenge from London

and up to Inverness to check out Nessie.  Later trip I just rode the Welsh narrow

gauge, the Festiniog.  In the U.S. I have ridden a tourist run to Hinton, and the Durango to Silverton, before and after it became a tourist road, PERIOD!  I drove into Switzerland, parked my rental Ford Escort in a parking lot full of BMW's and Mercedes in a small town in the north of Switzerland, in the station parking lot, got on a train, circled the country for a couple of nights' stays at the access town for the Matterhorn, which allows no cars, and then looped back, got in my perfectly safe car and drove into Austria.  No sweat, all arranged from here.

I think it was a TCA convention on the west coast several years ago..."Hey, I will

take the train!".  Nope, Amtrak station that worked best was south of Chicago, was

NOT where you would leave your car (not sure now that it had a parking lot), and

was a long drive to get to.  ???? " 'think I will skip this one and take a vacation

somewhere else".

The last time I took Amtrak, the ride was decent and less hassles then the airlines and much cheaper. However there was no rental car company closer then five miles from the train station, this was in Jacksonville FL.

Tried to get a train station closer to Albany GA, as my wife wants to go see her relatives near Albany, no train service unless I want to spend two days or longer on the train as it has to go to Washington D.C. to change tracks and come back to Atlanta GA. Also found out the Jacksonville FL to New Orleans LA Amtrak service no longer runs. Can ship freight from Jacksonville FL to New Orleans LA but not people.

I hope that FEC can do the run from Orlando to Miami FL, and put a hurting on the airlines, reason behind what I am saying is simple, price a ticket from Orlando FL to Miami FL, just don't have a heart attack because of the(over $200.00 one way and baggage scalping!) price!!

Lee F.

>>Can ship freight from Jacksonville FL to New Orleans LA but not people.

Freight = profit.

Passengers = Subsidy.

'Nuff said.

I, too, have riden lots of trains in Europe and this is my preferred method of travel unless large distances are preferred.  I haven't riden Amtrak as much, only a couple of times in the past 18 months, but have found this travel to be comfortable as well.

Regarding the comment:

"If Amtrak can't support themselves without tax payer money then go out of business. I have said this for any transportation entity"

No disresprect meant, but I find this pretty nieve.  As taxpayers, we spend hundreds of billions of dollars in transportation infrastructure a year, be it roads, bridges, airports (and air traffic control), and waterways.

Do we spend enough money on funding the infrastructure for rail travel?  I don't know.  But I do know that we spend lots of money funding other ways that move people and goods, monies that I think are spent for the common good. 

Jim

Amtrak loses money for every fare and that loss is funded by the taxpayers.

If they can figure out how to pack people in like car parts, or coal, or trash, then passenger trains can be profitable too.  Come to think of it, airlines try to do that (pack 'em in) and they aren't too profitable either.  

Ace, we did the cross-country All Aboard Amtrak in 1998 too and had a blast!  The Southwest Chief was notoriously late, otherwise the trains were generally on time.  The food and accommodations were good and the service was mostly top notch, except for the SW Chief; staff on that train was pretty surly. 

Happy to report that my wife and I did a 10-day Amtrak trip in 2010.  The Southwest Chief must have improved, as all was fine - on time and great crew.    I should add that we had been concerned about the Chief arriving on time in L.A., as we were to meet our son there.  The rep we were talking to said, "Oh, the Chief is always on time, if not early."

>> The rep we were talking to said, "Oh, the Chief is always on time, if not early."

That's typical on the long-distance Amtrak routes: padding the schedule at the end to allow make-up time.

Ya, take the Mooney.

Tail's on backwards, but it flies.

The family is heading to NYC this weekend for our annual see the lights and sights thing and a bit of shopping. Normally we drive and park by GCS. 

This year were boarding an early train in New Jersey and taking it into the city. Everyone's excited about this especially the younger ones. Who am I kidding...I'm the most excited. Should add a nice element to our trip. 

If I recall correctly, freight has *ALWAYS* subsidised passenger traffic.  Is this correct?

It's been said that some passenger rail operators of years gone by claimed a profit on some of their passenger services (Santa Fe among them), but only if you didn't count the capital expenses of maintaining the lines upon which they ran to passenger standards, or factoring in the cost of replacing the rolling stock when it's due for retirement.

Otherwise, passenger rail has always been a loss-leader. Ironically, Amtrak covers about 85% of its operating expenses through ticket revenue. This figure puts them at or near the top worldwide in terms of farebox recovery.

---PCJ

Amtrak has lost $834 million in the last 10 years on food & beverage service.

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/...es-over-past-decade/

http://transportation.house.go...cle.aspx?NewsID=1734