Orcas

Hey down there in California! Not fair to trash Amtrak for the entire west coast! We have taken Amtrak dozens of times between Portland and Seattle, and it runs down through Salem and Eugene, as well. It is too bad that service to Vancouver BC isn't better as that is a run that would also get a lot of use.

We've been able to pack up our kids on the train and send them to visit friends or family up and down the line for years, even before they could drive. We also go as adults occasionally, sometimes when we have a ride one way but not back; sometimes when just one of us is traveling and we don't need a car. Usually there are movies showing on the monitors. There's a snack car; great views. You can relax and read. You can sit at a table and play cards. It sure beats sitting in traffic on I-5! And it isn't expensive.

I remember when Amtrak first came in when I was in college in Kalamazoo, Michigan and my family lived in Chicago. Before Amtrak, I'd have to spend 5 hours on a bus taking the milk run. It was pretty creepy, quite frankly, with all sorts of low-lifes on the bus, but I'll spare you the stories. Brr. Amtrak was so wonderful, I cannot tell you. It took around 3 hours and was clean with large seats and a different clientele. Not to date myself, but that was in about 1971.

It is a shame the rail system isn't more developed. I hear the busses are still pretty scuzzy. Amtrak is fun.

JBHapgood

RJW, I actually have looked into Jet Blue from Long Beach. From where I live, getting to Long Beach takes about the same amount of time as getting to LAX.

Using a smaller airport might help with the crowds and queues, but the new dubious "security" restrictions are still the same. I've had some very bad experiences with checked luggage getting lost or delayed, so I avoid anything to do with it. Since I have to use hard-to-find types of sunscreen and mosquito repellent (I have had allergic reactions to DEET and common chemicals in sunscreens), it means I either have to check a bag or try to find what I need at my destination. I know-- "quit whining about a petty sacrifice for safety." Except I have no reason to believe it does anything to make anyone safer beyond a placebo reassurance.

So that's why I'm looking at trains, which I thought might be more pleasant than flying. It's too bad that it would amount to trading one set of hassles for another. We really do need usable alternatives to the ordeal of flying, the waste and pollution of driving, or staying home reading message boards.

JBHapgood

MikeT, would it be realistic to try for a good night's sleep in a coach seat to avoid the overpriced sleeper? I'm sort of afraid of the prospect of driving in a strange place (or home from Union Station in heavy traffic) after a sleepless night. What are coach seats like anyway?

I was aware that sleepers are "first class." But that still doesn't account for the exorbitant price. Are there enough wealthy retirees or foreigners to keep the beds filled on long-distance routes (some of which probably cost even more)?

ajcolorado

As you can guess from my user ID, I live in Colorado. I've often thought it would be great to take the train but have never found a coach train fare that was comparably priced to a coach plane fare.

Andrew

Well, Orcas, living in Portland myself I have taken Amtrak to Seattle a few times and must say the service leaves a bit to be desired. Pretty much every trip I've been on has been at least 30 minutes if not 60 minutes late each way (waiting for freight traffic). And service from Portland to, say, Eugene is kind of laughable. Most of the time if you check the schedule you'll get buses. It's really a joke compared to European trains.

The Vancouver-Seattle-Portland-Eugene corridor is the perfect example of where expanded train travel would make ideal sense. Instead of saying the area isn't dense enough, we should put the cart before the horse for a change and plan future growth around train travel in this region (and it's going to grow like gangbusters in the next 50 years). We should add direct links between the train stations and the airports, as has been done on the east coast. Portland is taking their MAX train closer to Union Station but not the Airport line, inexplicably. But at least there is a link; in Seattle, it's not simple to get from Seatac to the train station.

In the Pacific Northwest, train travel could be made almost as fast as flying (when you factor in security), faster than driving, and of course as a business person you can continue to work as you travel - much harder when you fly. Expanding Amtrak in this region would surely be cheaper than dealing with all the increased congestion at the area airports as air travel keeps growing. And when you speculate about the price of gasoline in 20 years, suddenly a train to Seattle sounds far more attractive than driving in the future.

But no one in power in today's congress has this kind of vision, and as I said people like McCain actually want to kill Amtrak. It's never going to survive as an unsubsidized for-profit business, just as the airlines wouldn't survive, either.

Andrew

Orcas

Thanks for your good post, Andrew. I agree with you. The PNW is an ideal corrider for Amtrak and train service. Most of the population is concentrated between the Cascades and the ocean. It's a linear path. It really wouldn't take much to connect up with the airports and link to other population centers.

Don't know if this is Portland's problem, but when train service first expanded in Chicago it did not run all the way to O'Hare. One had to take a bus and then transfer. It had to do with the politics of the different transportation providers. Eventually, the train made it to O'Hare, of course.

There is a trick to getting the Amtrak trains that run on schedule, though you probably know this. The ones that originate in Portland are usually more "on time." If it's a run from California, it can be very late. One definitely has to expect delays.

As to JPHapgood's question re sleeping in the coach seats, a LOT of people do that. The seats are quite ample - much more roomy and comfy than aiplane seats. I say this based on an overnight trip we took from Chicago to Boston. We actually slept in a sleeping car, but we checked it out and lots of people were curled up with blankets and sleeping in the coach seats. The main difference we saw besides from the obvious, was that there were more people sharing bathrooms in the coach section. In the sleeper cars you had your own toilet and sink, and showers in the larger ones. Still, if you're someone who can sleep in a comfy chair, you could probably sleep in the coach seats. Take earplugs for all the screechy stops. That's also true in the sleeper cars.

bluestar

It's exciting to think of the not-too-distant future here in California when our TGV-styled highspeed rail system will be in place. By 2020, which isn't that far away, you will be able to be whisked from SF-LA in about 2.5 hours at speeds in excess of 230mph. With a projected state population of over 50 million by that time it will practically be a necessity. It's been in development for several years now and I'm confident the plans will stay on track to see its completion. Are there any similar ambitious projects of this scale in other regions of North America that anyone knows of, or is California the lone trailblazer again?

http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/

Andrew

A high speed rail link between Vancouver and Portland/Eugene has been talked about for ages (Amtrak expansion) but I don't know what stage planning ever got to. I'm kind of doubting now that it ever got very far.

Have you ever ridden the TGV or another high-speed train? Although I love trains, I found myself getting motion sickness on a few of the high-speed trains I rode in Europe. They are much less stable, more bouncy than a regular train. I happen to be sensitive to motion sickness but usually don't have any problem on a train or a plane, but these high speed trains are a bit of a problem for me. I have no doubt I'll want to try the LA-SF train someday, however!

pat

Last time I was going to take the Calif zephyr, the train was 12 hours late. We got our money back and stayed home. So much for amtrak.

FainaAgain

Thank you for encouragement, people, I will be taking Amtrak from Chicago to San Francisco in 2 weeks

Seriously, I don't know why I'm doing it, I have the feeling I'll regret it, but everybody keeps saying it goes through Colorado, and it's so beautiful!

I am taking it from vacation point toward home hoping it will take off or at least the boarding will be on time. And to be on the safe side, I've requested an additional vacation day. Just in case it will be as late as predicted, like 10 or 12 hours.

Daniel_Williams

Faina--

You may remember my post on the California Zephyr from awhile back; you'll actually pass through Reno on the way. As you long as one doesn't think, "I could do this faster if I were driving/flying, etc...", and appreciate the ride for what it is not what it isn't, like many of my fellow passengers and myself, you might really enjoy the trip.

I was 4-5 hours late both directions (yep, Amtrak both ways), which actually is close to what I was expecting (I suspect a typical delay), and it can be worse! The only thing I was a bit concerned about was making sure my guest house in San Francisco would be able to let me in at 10pm.

The Colorado Rockies portion is beautiful, as are many Utah/Nevada and California landscapes you'll pass through. Anyhow, I hope you do enjoy it; I'm actually a bit envious, if you can believe that!

Best wishes, DAN

bluestar

Andrew, I've only been on a Thalys and didn't have any trouble -- but luckily I'm not prone to motion sickness. I remember feeling the sway stabilizer and then some G-force pinning me down in the seat for a while and that seemed strange but not uncomfortable.

The only time in my life I've had motion sickness (and I didn't even barf) was out on the open ocean off of Monterey in enormous swells. What set me off was watching everybody else turn green and puke their guts out. Last trip to Europe I sat with two Dutch actors and the one by me had the worst sensitivity to motion I've ever seen -- he just kept hurling for hours. I felt so bad for him. The slightest bit of turbulence would have him retching.

Betsy

Hey Faina, wanna borrow my Fodors pin for your trip

Please write an Amtrak trip report when you return.

gblatham

Personally, I really feel for JBHapgood and his struggles with the existing condition of passenger train service in these United States. As a long-time professional railroader and faithful railroad passenger, stories like his both shame and depress me.

Andrew makes several very valid points; however I vehemently disagree with his contention that "[w]hile train travel cross country hardly makes sense anymore except purely for recreation, shorter distance train travel makes a lot of sense." In fact, it was JBHapgood's plans to give train travel a try for his proposed long distance trip that started this thread!

Passenger train service can make "a lot of sense" for MANY different sorts of itineraries, from day-to-day commutation to transcontinental land cruises...and most everything inbetween!

As others have already pointed out, it will take money, political cooperation and public desire to effect any real change. Railroad services - passenger and freight - MUST become integral parts of a definitive national transporation policy (something we've never had, by the way). Trains need to be equal players, ranking up there with automobile and airplanes, when our federal decision-makers begin planning for future transport needs.

So, are today's U.S. intercity passenger train services "really just for 'rail fans'"? Perhaps; at least such a thing can (obviously) be successfully argued. The point, though, is it doesn't NEED to be that way! Presuming reasonable investment levels and the proper people at the helm, there are no practical (or technical) reasons why North America couldn't enjoy a railroad system which would be the envy of the world!

When it becomes our honest desire to recreate a safe, efficient, comfortable, environmentally friendly, cost-effective, competitive domestic network of passenger train services, today's railroads will offer us a reasonable starting point. Existing privately owned rights-of-way, expanded and improved with public funds (and with the needs of freight operations in mind, too) in exchange for the expedited handling of passenger trains, could very easily prove the viability (and marketability) of modern railway services without the cost (or blind faith) which would be required of a wholesale adoption of true high-speed technology. A quick look at the speeds and service levels which were available a half-century ago should give us a very good idea of what is possible for our society today while using that approach.

Many of us have our "thing" - an interest which is part of our innermost being. This is mine! I've given these issues a great deal of thought and remain absolutely convinced that real, live, honest-to-goodness passenger trains have a future...HERE! I only hope that I live to see the day - and can play some role in their resurrection.

Garl Boyd Latham
Dallas, Texas

Neopolitan

JBHapgood, you've explained why trains are so dismal in the US and why they flourish in Europe. I also looked at that Seattle to California route and found it totally insane in every way -- especially the cost.

JBHapgood

Garl, thanks for the explanation from the "professional railroader" perspective. But I think I do have to agree with Andrew. Absent something like a science-fictiony high-speed rail system, distances in the United States really are too long for transcontinental rail to be practical in a fast-paced world. What business traveler in Seattle could afford to spend two days traveling each way to and from Los Angeles? Conversely, short-distance trips like those in the Northeast or the commuter line between Los Angeles and San Diego are now competitive with flying when you factor in the wait for "security," so they have a place as a viable option. Similarly, a high-speed rail link between Los Angeles and the Bay Area would be very usable for commuters and business executives, provided it lives up to the promise. But anything across the length or breadth of the continent just takes too long.

I am only able to consider a long distance trip like the Coast Starlight because I'm fortunate enough to have enough seniority at my company to enjoy a European level of vacation time. So if it were affordable without having to camp out overnight in a coach seat, I might well enjoy spending the better part of a week on a leisurely trip through what I'm told is exquisite scenery. As a solo traveler, it would particularly be a better way to spend time getting to know a lot of nice new friends than any other sort of trip. But the average American who is lucky to have two weeks of vacation time (and to be allowed the luxury of actually taking it) probably would not want to spend most of it on a train, no matter how great an experience that's supposed to be. That's a situation unlikely to change, which effectively consigns long-distance train travel to retirees and foreigners. I don't think that would be enough to make it cost effective regardless of the political climate.

What I do find inexcusable is the absurd inconvenience of the train routes in California. I suspect that the combination of out-of-the-way trains and feeder buses is the best the well-meaning officials can cobble together from available resources. It may it may adequately serve the needs of many people who have no other choice. But I can't see such a trip being anything other than exhausting. But it's not something I think anyone would consider desirable unless they're so disgusted with (or fearful of) flying that putting up with it is the only way to get where they're going.

What I have learned is that the combination of politics and geography in the United States conspire to strongly favor the airplane and the automobile for most transportation, and greatly limit the situations where passenger trains are viable. In my case, the only way I can avoid flying is if I confine my travel to places close enough to home so that a solo road trip is (almost) enjoyable rather than tedious and trying. That's exactly what I've been doing for over five years. Now that I've exhausted the "easy" local places that interest me, I'm looking for an alternative that preferably does not require flying. I'm rather disappointed that Amtrak does not provide that alternative. One might think that the continually-increasing discomfort and inconvenience of air travel in the Age of Terror would create an opportunity for Amtrak, but apparently their management lacks the imagination, the initiative, the resources, or all of them, to seize that opportunity. What a shame. But, given a moment's thought, not that surprising.

Andrew

JBHapgood, thanks for making good points about the practicality of train travel in the United States. You're right - no one except a tourist or an absolute train enthusiast is going to take a train from Seattle to, say, Chicago when they can fly in a fraction of the time. Portland to San Francisco would make more sense if there was a higher speed link, if only because you can work on the train, but that's about as far as is going to work for most people.

I think it's unfair to blame Amtrak management for the current state of the system when their primary focus of late is to keep it running with limited resources while cutting costs wherever possible. In that kind of environment, imagination and innovation are probably the last things that will ever happen, sadly.

Andrew

railroadman_32257

Actually you are not missing much. Congress has forced Amtrak to charge almost more than the traffic will bear for all their services. This is largely because they are not subsidized sufficiently to provide a lower cost and/or more numerous service. Prices have drastically increased, while service has gotten much worse, during the Bush administration.
The only way you can reduce the cost of your travel, and have a reasonable chance of getting sleeping car space (officially US-DOT and Amtrak haters say nobody rides the trains, but when I ride them, they are sold out, so who are those things on the train, martians?) is to reserve a long way ahead of time.
The only train I regular used was the Sunset LImited, between Jacksonville and Houston, which no longer serves Florida. My last trip, end of July 2005, would have cost me nearly $1000(RT) if I had been able to get space in June or early July (it was always sold out 90 days head, usually 4-5 months), but I made my reservation and paid for it in January 2005, so it cost me $550. I should point out that when I travel alone, I am paying for two people in the roomette although nobody else is there. If my wife goes with me, it will cost only an extra coach fare, about $160. Sure, I could fly (then) on SouthWEst Airlines for $300, but I much prefer travel where I can see the scenery - and - if something goes awry - walk away from it.

J. H. Sullivan, P.E. (retired)
Jacksonville, FL

roco

Hi, Have you considered a Surfliner trip to glorious San Diego? I'm a native of SD and JUST decided to stay at the LaPensione Hotel in our Little Italy. Only $79/night for a sparkling clean room in a delightful part of town, very close to Amtrak (take the trolley one stop north, then walk two blocks to hotel. Close to harbor, Gaslamp District, downtown---all walkable. This is like a REAL getaway for CHEAP! In off season, there are often 2 for 1 tickets--maybe AAA?
I'm sure that you have your share of credit cards, but for those of you who are Amtrak fans, there is a VISA available that gives FREE Amtrak miles.
Friday we leave from LA on the Southwest Chief to Santa Fe (Lamy). I have a FREE miles ticket and purchased DH ticket on Amtrak credit card giving me MORE miles($200/RT--and that's clear back to San Diego!!!!)
We've done this before, sitting in coach seats downstairs.
One thing that is a PLUS for Amtrak, for the same price, you can get off in some town of interest along the way, spend however long you want, and then catch the same train the next day or ??, and so on in each town.
YOUR TICKET MUST BE WRITTEN TO INCLUDE THESE STOPS AND IT IS THE SAME PRICE.
If you do this, you can tolerate the Coach seat easily. We got up at 5:30 a.m., went to the observation car with individual swivel seats, and stayed until the train arrived in Albuquerque at noon to see kids/grandchildren for the weekend, then departed on Sunday's train for the one hour to Lamy with van shuttle ($) to Santa Fe.
If you get a good/great agent (sometimes it happens) at (800) number, there are usually very helpful.
I, too, would like to do the Coast Starlight to Seattle, however, a friends story of mystery delays that no one mentioned the reasons for, and arriving back in San Diego approx. 2 a.m. was enough.
Also, sometimes you can find a "fun" employee aboard a short trip that will be a wealth of knowledge with the do's and don'ts; but there are many grizzled and grumpy employees that are just looking for the next stop where they can jump off to smoke!
Take a trip to my town, and practice!
You won't be sorry!

JBHapgood

Roco, I really do enjoy San Diego and have made a number of trips there. I go there when I want a weekend getaway to somewhere interesting, or sometimes as a last-minute "old reliable" replacement for a vacation that had to be canceled or deferred for whatever reason. (By the way, as someone who nearly always travels solo, those 2-for-1 tickets would do nothing for me but induce anger.)

I have considered the Pacific Surfliner, but it seems less than useful. I could drive halfway to San Diego in the time it takes to get to Union Station, and I'd also have a car once I get to San Diego (which addmittedly is more of a liability than an asset Downtown). That train route is probably an excellent asset for commuters (or for a day trip to Downtown San Diego), but for a vacation it's questionable unless you live close enough to Union Station.

The only Amtrak trip that actually seems feasible is the Pacific Surfliner north to San Luis Obispo, to explore the Central Coast. Even there, most of the trains go only as far as Santa Barbara; the rest of the way is on a bus. I don't understand why that is, but there must be a reason.