Amtrak out West?
 

We're planning to take Amtrak from Eugene, Or., to L.A., drive L.A. to Santa Fe., and then Amtrak again from Las Vegas, NM to St. Louis, and then drive east some more. Any experiences, thoughts, opinions, advice, warnings ... re Amtrak out west? We've booked a deluxe one bedroom w/ private bathroom for the overnight portions of this trip. Thank you.

We took the trip from San Francisco to Eugene, then to Seattle. It's not luxurious by any means, but having your own bathroom should help immensely. We didn't have one and the sleeping quarters were very cramped and stuffy. I would rather rent a car and drive the portions that required sleeping on the train, but the one bedroom berth may make the trip more pleasant.

Travelling in business class from Eugene to Seattle was comfortable but, since it's near the front of the train, there was a lot of whistle-blowing noise.

Is the Eugene to LA the Coast Starlight? If so it is a nice train with a lounge car where you can sit and see the sights. We did the trip from Seattle to San Francisco and enjoyed our time but did not get much sleep because of the many stops during the night. If you are on that train go to the lounge area and get a seat soon after boarding as it gets crowded quickly.

A potential warning - Our train was generally on time but other passengers warned us that the train is often behind schedule sometimes by many hours. I often ride the train between DC and NYC where the trains are generally on schedule. We were told that Amtrak does not own the track out west and they don't have the right of way so the passenger trains often wait long periods for other traffic. If you are not on a schedule this does not really matter.

thank you. we are on somewhat of a schedule, but maybe the fact we're traveling on a saturday night will mean less commercial traffic on the same rails. i know what you mean, though. we are acela/metroliner people and one gets spoiled. we once took the train between DC and FLA. - btw, never again - and sat somewhere in South Carolina for 3 hours! it was a kind of hell.

The freight trains run all the time, so I don't think a Saturday night gives you any better shot of being on time than on a weekday.

Andrew

I guess we were lucky. Our train arrived in Seattle on schedule, to the minute.

Being on time or late is the same as gambling in Vegas: if you win (train on time) you feel happy, if you lose (train late) just think of it as of an adventure.

Don't count on being on time. And it's not alway the freight. Once my train was 2 hours late leaving Los Angeles - mechanical problem.

Once the bridge before Sacramento wouldn't close after letting a tall boat go. And because of a weekend or a holiday they couldn't locate an engineer to fix it. Luckily it was the last stop of a local train, so the passengers were bussed to the station.

Once, approaching Oakland, a tree fell on the rails. I don't know if it's a joke, at least not mine - this was announced on the loudspeaker. We arrived at midnight instead of 10 pm.

If you need to be somewhere on time Amtrak is not dependable. Especially now with all their financial troubles.

Amtrak is not a treat. You would be much better off flying, driving, and sleeping someplace where you can get a good night's rest.

For midgets only. Oops, sorry. For our little friends only.

Opinions vary. Mine is that Amtrak is not a preferred mode for long-haul travel in the west, for a couple of reasons.

First, the north-south mainline route takes far from the most scenic path, and the scheduling geniuses at Amtrak seem to have a real knack of insuring that the most attractive scenery is passed at night. Not always the case but often enough to be seriously irritating, given the transport and accommodation prices they get.

Second, they are often late and prone to equipment imperfections - not necessarily dead trains, but track difficulties, something wrong with the cars or services - something. Again, not every trip and not every route, but enough...

Third, they're slow as Moses. But give more credit to Moses - he was lost for 40 years, and Amtrak just has to follow...tracks.

Take Amtrak across the Great Plains - fine. Across Texas - better. But skip the Redwoods and the California coast? No way. Rent a car. Stay at a motel with a real shower.

Others may disagree.

On a side note... Gardyloo, do you know why Moses wandered in the desert for 40 years?

Because even back then, a man wouldn't stop to ask for directions!

Nah, it was because Mapquest.com <i>sucks</i> on the Sinai.

thank you, all. as of now, we're committed to the train, because we will have just traveled by auto from chicago to eugene, or. also, we drove the pacific coast a year ago. it seemed like an opportunity to kick back with a book and veg. i know it's a gamble. poor amtrak. if only they cared. in august we trained from antibes to paris...in a sleeper...and it was a thrill. still, after all these years.

I hope you will reflect on the suggestions given here as you bounce around in your tiny, tardy itsy-bitsy deluxe one-bedroom cabin.

It's not that Amtrak doesn't care - it's that the US Congress and Executive Branch do not think Amtrak is worth the money to improve it. Even now they are talking about not funding Amtrak to save money. Amtrak would do all kinds of wonderful things if given the money, but they aren't getting it. That's too bad - very short-sighted.

Trains are no longer a practical way to travel long distances when we have affordable air travel, but they are a great way to travel shorter distances (e.g. Seattle to Portland) vs. airplanes. Air traffic is going to get clogged up in the next 20 years and trains could help relieve some of the burden on the air traffic system. A fast Portland-Seattle train (currently takes about 3.5 hours on time) could be about as fast as a plane, once you factor in security waits, etc., but would take some planes out of the system and be a much more pleasant way to travel.

I've often thought that a passenger train between Portland and the coast - say, Lincoln City, stopping at the Grand Rhonde casino - would be very popular with tourists. It would parallel a dangerous highway (18) that is increasing in traffic, so it would probably save lives and money down the line, too, while improving the tourist industry. I believe there are opportunities for passenger rail like this all over the place.

Andrew

We don't need a Federal-government funded central agency like AMTRAK to run trains all over the country. It can be cut down to simply run trains in the NE corridor. In other parts of the country, the individual states can fund their own trains, if that make economical sense. California is doing well, and the service along the I-5 corridor can also survive.

However, the really long distance trains really have to go.

The Coast Starlight is run independently of the overall Amtrak organization (at least it was at the time of our trip in 1998). Do look into this option, as opposed to any 'ordinary' train for your journey. And if you google you will find lots of information on the CS and journals/trip reviews (more recent than mine, I'm sure!) of their travels. Happy rails to you!

(And as the daughter of a steam locomotive engineer and fireman, yes, I'm biased when it comes to trains!)

What Andrew has posted above is true - many of the issues that plague Amtrak are due to the fact that, unlike highways and airports, Passenger rail in the United States has no dedicated long term source of funding. the highways are (partly) funded by the gas taxes, which go into the Highway Trust Fund, while the airlines &amp; airports are funded by, among other things, local bond issues and the Airline Trust fund. These mechanisms create a lot more money, to the point that these have budgets that are 30 times what Amtrak has. The railroads, for the most part, have to pay for all of their own maintenance out of their own pockets, while the airports and highways are supported by the taxpayers. The railroads also, for the most part, have to pay for any expansion to their track capacity. having the states buy track capacity for them is the rare exception, and far from the rule. As Andrew points out amtrak would be a nicer system, and there would be higher ridership in many parts of our nation, however, Amtrak (or somebody else) would have to buy the tracks, signals, etc, for the RRs, otherwise you will be stuck in the situation similar to what you have right now. Don't compare the NYC-WAS corridor to the long distance trains, there are those in the RR industry who have indicated that it is the long distance trains which are the money makers and the NYC-DC trains which are the financial &quot;albatross&quot; around Amtrak's neck.

As always, it depends a lot upon your personal perspective as to how your trips go - I've been on several trips throughout the system, and met folks aboard the same train where some are describing it as the trip from hell while others are having a great fun time. It really does depend on the route, who the landlord RR is (right now the Burlington Northern RR and the Canadian Pacific RR are very professional and tolerant of Amtrak being on their tracks, while the Union Pacific RR is the most hostile), who the crews happen to be at the time, and what your perception is. I don't mind riding in the sleeper, but then I usually travel just by myself.
Another thing that I want to point out is that Amtraks sleepers are more functional than luxurious. If you expect serious rail luxury, you should look at the American Orient Express, or perhaps Rail Ventures.com. if you do so you should be expect to pay anywhere from 4 - 8 times what Amtrak charges. As for several of the other criticisms leveled at Amtrak on these boards, you could make similar ones regarding the Airlines or car travel as well. Ever been stuck in traffic jams for long periods? Ever have cancelled flights at the airport? And, just about every airline has had their share of complaints regarding serivice, tardiness, facilities, maintenance delays, etc. Every mode of travel has its share of flaws. Soemtimes it bothers people, other times it doesn't.

The European countries have better train service due to the bottom line - they spend as much on their trains as the US spends on its highways.

*/rant mode *ON/
As long as I've got full steam on here, rkkwan, how about privatizing every last inch of the Interstate Highways, and also getting rid of all of the various funds that support highways and making them all toll roads? And get rid of the FAA as well - make airlines buy their own airports and pay for their own traffic controllers if they want to service a particular city. No airport trust funds, either. Privatize the airports and the highways.
/rant mode *OFF/

I guess I'll bring some good wine, a good book, a good pillow, and hope for the best.

WICT_106 - Main difference between taxpayer subsidizing trains vs plane/highway is that tonnes of people use the planes and the highways, and is crucial in the economy of this country. Long distance trains outside the corridors are not.

I never suggest we don't need the NE Corridor. If taxpayer's money is needed to keep in running, so be it. And so are various trains in California and West.

What I severly object is running trains like the Sunset Limited that lose tonnes of money for every passenger it carries. For what purpose, you tell me? It's simply federally subsidized tourism.

If people want to take trains, there are luxury train excursions they can take. Don't ask me to pay for it!

You pay for so many other things you don't need or use, why object to something that would reduce dependence on oil?

Horizon, we've taken Amtrak from Newport News, VA to Boston, from Seattle to Chicago to New Orleans, but never done the route you've done. Once we were three hours late going into NYC and they gave us a voucher for two free tickets...never seen an airline do that for being three hours late. Amtrak is not as nice as European or Canadian trains, but if you like to read and take things slowly, it's fine. Last summer my husband said he wanted to sit around and read on his vacation, so we took a long train trip- it was very relaxing and enjoyable. I know there are lots of naysayers, but slow travel is not for everyone. A good book and a bottle of wine sounds good (don't they have wine tastings on the Coast Starlight?). We weren't even in the private bathroom, just the regular sleeper, and we thought it was fine on the long trip we took. Our biggest complaint was the lack of variety in the menu because we'd just come off the Canadian train with great food.

I'm in agreement with WICT 106's rant, also. Unfortunately Amtrak doesn't have the political clout of those who care about the highways, airlines, and increasing our dependence on oil.

HOpe you enjoy your trip.

Here's a super idea. Bring back the steam locomotive! Not any steam loco, but one that burns coal, not oil. Don't use any foreign oil, for sure. And millions of people will line up paying big bucks for the change to ride coast-to-coast behind a steam loco.

Let's tell AMTRAK to do this. They will be running a surplus to help reduce the federal budget.

BTW, here are some real numbers:

Based on a study you can read here. http://www.lafn.org/~dave/trans/ener...gal_36-63.html AMTRAK's fuel economy in 2002 is 26 passenger-mile per gallon of gasoline equivalent.

Based on Airbus's A380 papers, its fuel burn can be as low as 3liter per passenger per 100km. Or after some conversions, 79 passenger-miles/gallon. Which is 3 times more fuel efficient than AMTRAK is in 2002.

Now, even if you account for the fact that a 737 or A320 is less efficient than an A380, etc, you'll find that AMTRAK is not a fuel-efficient way to transport passengers in this country.

Rkkwan, if you think that &quot;no one&quot; rides a train such as the Empire builder across the northern portion of the nation, you are mistaken. I can tell from personal experience that it is a busy train, and Amtrak's own figures support the assertion that the Builder has the highest average ridership of all Amtrak's trains. People get on and off at almost every single stop, to the point that most of the ridership is generated by the intermediate stops, not the endpoints. You wrote of &quot;money losing&quot; trains, well, this one isn't it. It also helps that the builder has a rather hospitable landlord RR, but that is another argument.

To Horizon: Be patient, get a bottle of wine, and grab a good book, and enjoy. You'll find it relaxing. As long as I'm on the topic, the Coast Starlight is on the rails of the Union Pacific RR, which is notorious for being highly indifferent to Amtrak. You will find that the bedrooms are a bit on the small side, but then they have to fit into a small area. I've always considered them to be cozy. You'll also find that your experience can vary depending upon your perspective. I've had train trips where I've met people who thought the train was horrible, and others who thought it was &quot;fairly good,&quot; on the same train.

OK, rkkwan, would those numbers be the same if the planes traveled on routes that required as many as 40 stops enroute? What sort of fuel economy would those vehicles have if they had to make 40 different landings and takeoffs along the route between, say, Seattke and Chicago? How much would such a type of flight cost? Or, were those measurements based upon one single trip between two points. You can't compare flights to train routes, because they are invalid comparisons. Train routes generate traffic and business based upon the stops along the route, whereas plane routes are based soley upon the end-points of a given route. They are two different things. Did your cost also Factor how much the trip would cost if the airlines had to fund their airports - each airport - and traffic control entirly out of their own money (ie., no taxpayer funds, no gov't bond issues, no Trust Fund)? Railroads, for the most part have to pay their own way.

Comparing train trips to plane flights is like, well, comparing apples to oranges.

While I share your desire to reduce the amount of governemtn waste that is supported by our taxpayer money, I think that there are better ways to accomplish this goal than by reducing transport choices for many citizens of our fine country. Not everyone uses Amtrak for vacations or tourism.

Okay. Forget about the plane. If people can't ride the train to small towns in the upper midwest, and I don't mean the tourists, but people who actually live or work there - how about government subsidized bus service. I am sure Greyhound or other bus companies won't mind increasing service if they get paid - and I am sure the bus is much more efficient in getting people to their places.

And a bus can get at least 6 miles to a gallon. Even if it's only 1/4 full, carrying say 15 passengers, that will still give us 90 passenger-miles/gallon. More fuel efficient than passenger rail.

BTW, if the states along Empire Builder's route and their local communities want to subsidize the train, I'll okay with that. Many other states are already doing that, or in fact runs their own commuter trains.

Again, I don't object using some taxpayes' money to help with rail, when the rail is important (certain corridors) or when locals are willing to put some money up. But AMTRAK as it is makes no economical sense.

Even if a train is full of passengers, that doesn't mean it makes economical sense. And mind you the Empire Builder which you keep mentioning is one of the best run and efficient cross-country trains. That cannot be said of other trains like the Sunset Limited.

Anyways, that's all I have to say about this. 30+ years with AMTRAK, when the US has 7 Presidents of both parties, and it is still a mess is the best proof that this makes no sense. Let it die.

Well, again, comparing a bus to a train is another apples to oranges comparison. Each Amtrak double deck passenger car has the capacity to carry 74 people in coach, and 45 per sleeper. Two 4000hp locomotives can pull as many as four dozen passenger cars, and even more if the circumstances (and car availability) call for it. The Empire Builder that I bring up typically has capacity for 500, that's 350 in coach and 150 in the sleepers.
Trains have a higher &quot;panache&quot; than buses, which may be one reason why Greyhound is reducing service in many markets. It seems to me that, if given a valid choice, people would rather take a train trip where they can get up, stretch their legs, or go to the lounge car and get a beverage. The train itself makes 40 stops in each trip along its route, which works out to as many as 931 possible city pairs. What flight route can make that claim?

Also you write that if a train is full it still makes no economic sense? To me it seems as though being full to capacity indicates that it makes plenty of sense. What happens is that in order to ensure vitality, what is needed is a network of routes with multiple departures each day, and nt just a lose connection of trains. (see midwesthsr.org, and click on &quot;think you know trains? think again.&quot;)

I still concur with yor sentiments against wsteful spending of taxpayer funds, though.

I sure did not read all the post regarding Amtrak but after taking the train several times up and down the west coast I would <b>never take Amtrak again. Especially after older relatives rode Amtrak also thinking it would be easier then flying.

And how sad, train travel should be wonderful.</b>