Our (my husband and I, both retirees from downunder) first idea of buying a used car or motorhome to travel around the USA was dead almost as soon as I had considered it.
What we have decided to do, is something like this: fly to Los Angeles, stay there a few days, take a train north to Seattle (maybe stop in San Fracisco), stay there a few days. Then take a train to New York stopping "älong the way" a few days in East Glacier Park, Chicago and Washington DC. From New York we would take a train to Atlanta for a few days and from there to New Orleans and after a few days another train to Los Angeles and then fly home.
We like train travel as that way we will see a lot of the country. I am sure the plan (places) mentioned can be improved on, added/changed/taken out. Like if Chicago and New Orleans are not recommended in summer, maybe we should instead take in some other places (like areas north of New York).
The reason we are doing this "route" is that we wish to see Seattle and New York ("maybe" New Orleans) and we wouldn't mind giving Chicago a miss if we can find a better train route. Starting the train trip from Los Angeles is sensible as that is where we land first.
Any tips/suggestions/advice ?
I'm truly grateful for any input, we do wish to have a memorable trip.

Make sure you have a way to get around when you get to a destination. LA is most easily explored by car, although you can use taxis and busses, but not conveniently. San Francisco, New York and DC have good public transportation, but I can't imagine that East Glacier will be easy to visit without a car.

Best wishes.

I posted about this on your other thread. I hope you'll reconsider the amount of train travel. It's not the best way to get around the U.S. even on an 8-week trip.

Your plan is fraught with problems most travelers want to avoid.

We like train travel as that way we will see a lot of the country. So do I--in Europe, but not in the US where trains often pass through the most scenic regions in the dark and dump passengers off in the middle of nowhere!

Travel by motorcycle is an excellent idea in comparison.

However, if you are determined to proceed, perhaps you will find useful advice on line. Here is one possible source of help: http://www.seat61.com/UnitedStates.htm#.UTDEJByccTA

HTTY

I know there are a couple of posters here that are proponents of train trvel in the US - but it is a really BAD idea - outside of a few small areas. Trains are very few and far between (1 a day?), they are often late (by many hours, since the tracks are owned by the freight companies and their trains get priority over passenger trains), they don;t go to many places, they are very expensive, food is mediocre to awful, sleeping compartments are small, very expensive and to my knowledge don;t provide showers.

As for seeing the country - you see mostly the wrong ends of town and a lot of nothing in between (train tracks are not in the most scenic areas - but the flattest - where building tracks was easiest.

Really, you are much better off either flying between areas and getting cars at each to see specific areas - or renting a car and driving cross country - so you can get to the scenic routes that the trains miss.

Remember that trains are nothing like europe. We do NOT have high speed trains - they do perhaps 60 mph and they are organized primarily for delivery of freight - not people.

I wouldn;t do this no matter how much you paid me.

Your suggested route is certainly feasible by train. seat61.com is definitely the best site around for info on train travel. amtrak.com also has a map of routes.

Last spring I traveled by train New York - Chicago - San Francisco - Portland - Seattle - Vancouver - Jasper - Montreal - New York. I thoroughly enjoyed the trip and I did not need a car in any of those cities, although I did need a car for exploring outside Portland and Seattle. (For info on my trip start here: http://mytimetotravel.wordpress.com/...shore-limited/ )

I would urge you to include San Francisco and Chicago - I had doubts about Chicago but enjoyed it much more than I expected. Instead of post-industrial grime I found a clean city that was making full use of its lake side. (But I didn't spend any time in the dodgy areas!) Personally I would be wary of visiting New Orleans - and Atlanta - in the summer - southern summers are miserable.

nytraveler and I will never agree about Amtrak outside the Northeast Corridor.
If you can manage to sleep in coach, it is a great way to see the country at ground level.
The change that I would make to your plan would be to take the Lake Shore Limited from Chicago to New York. You will be going through Washington on the way from New York to New Orleans.
I have traveled many thousands of miles on Amtrak always in coach. You will need to rent a car to get around the Whitefish/Glacier National Park area.
With the amount of rail travel, you may find the the USA Rail Pass (15, 30 or 45 days) will save you money.
You don't want to even try to buy a vehicle in the US and try to get insurance with a foreign address.

Amtrak sucks. It really does - late, slow, expensive. Not a good option outside the Northeast Corridor.

You are not talking about a service on par with European Intercity trains or Japan Rail.

>

Neither New Orleans nor Atlanta is as bad as Phoenix and this is the US so every indoor area is air-conditioned. Between spending time in Atlanta v. Chicago, I'd go to Chicago but you REALLY need to avoid the dodgy areas because large parts of that city are going into the dumper (increasing murder rates). New Orleans is unique and worth a visit on its own regardless of season.

Chicago is one of my favorite cities - so much to see and do, fabulous architecture,the lake, great food.

New Orleans is fabulous (talk about great food! and music!), but brutal (heat AND humidity) in the summer.

Atlanta isn't worth going out of your way for.

Judge the costs for yourself. The 30 day USA Rail Pass is $669 per person for 12 segments.
Yes Amtrak is often late but many flights are delayed or canceled as well.
I challenge anyone to find airline flights from Los Angeles to San Francisco from San Francisco to Chicago from Chicago to New York and New York to New Orleans for less than $669 per person.
The latest train I was ever on was the Canadian from Winnipeg to Jasper on ViaRail.

Well - my uncle was lost - we thought - due to Amtrak.

It took more than 8 hours to get from DC to near Willamsburgh VA - about a 2 hour trip. His phone died and due to his age and it being the middle of the night we were ready to call the police.

But no - he was stuck on an Amtrak train - with no food and incredibly nasty restrooms. He never took it again - said the bus (awful in itself) was faster and more convenient.

I have take trains in europe and most are fine and some excellent. Amtrak is not europe. And unless you really love trains - and wasting time, being stuck with bad food and limited amenities - it's not my idea of a vacation.

Oh - and do look at what special offers are available onlyin Oz - both for car rentals and plane fares. Just as there are train specials - there are often discount multi-trip offers for ex-US tourists.

I agree with those who say don't do it. I LOVE trains in Europe but the US is not Europe in many ways and train travel is number one. It's an OK way to get from Boston to NY to DC, where you don't want to have a car once you get there.

Also, I think you might be thinking that your itinerary will give you a taste of a bit of the various regions of the US. The problem with the US is that the "good" stuff is not evenly spread out. Sure there is something to be said for just about every area but you only have 8 weeks. Don't you want to see the 'best' (and of course you can't even do that in 8 weeks, but at least you shouldn't be wasting your time in a dirty, cramped car train slogging your way across the most uninteresting, least scenic parts of the country).

How about something like this: start in LA and rent a car and drive up the California coast which is gorgeous and which you will miss on the train. Probably drop the car in SF to avoid drop charges in a different state, and where you don't need a car. Then when you are done with SF take the train to Seattle. You'll miss some great scenery but you'll have at least you'll have seen some of the coast between LA and SF. Consider doing a side trip to Yosemite before dropping the car in SF. Probably two full weeks for the west coast.

From Seattle fly to Las Vegas and get another car rental and see some national parks (Grand Canyon, Bryce, Zion, etc) for a couple weeks and then drop the car back in Las Vegas and fly to Boston.

Spend a few days in Boston, then rent a car and drive up the coast of Maine and through interior New England before dropping the car back in Boston and taking the train to NYC. New England including Boston could easily take another two weeks.

NYC (no car) at least another week.

That leaves you with one more week. Either add the time onto one of places above, or go to DC.

Another vote for please, reconsider. Trains in the US are nothing like they are in Europe, and the distances are great, indeed. After an hour of staring at the Great Plains, you will be hating life. Whoever said they were late, slow and expensive had it right. I wouldn't do it in a fit.

I wouldn't use trains exclusively but they do serve a purpose for some areas.

Not a bad idea to take the train to Glacier NP as a one-way car rental or flight there would be pretty expensive. Same idea for getting from Glacier to Chicago.

I wouldn't hesitate to use the train in the Northeast. But I would suggest you skip Atlanta and probably New Orleans unless you have a really strong desire to see them - it will be very hot and humid. Of the two I would choose New Orleans as I think it's got a lot more character than Atlanta.

Chicago is great, especially in the downtown/loop area. If you are set on taking the train from Glacier to Chicago, you could also stop off in Minneapolis for a couple days and then either take the train or bus to Chicago (it takes the same amount of time either way).

I would fly from Chicago to New York without a doubt. Then fly to New Orleans and back to the West Coast. The only way I'd take the train is if you are really looking to save money by using a rail pass and don't mind spending that much time on the train. It's not what I would do but then again, I don't have 8 weeks to roam around the country. Maybe if I did I wouldn't mind taking the train.

I have traveled extensively on European trains and I LIKE AMTRAK ALOT.

But I use AMTRAK in smaller doses than you are suggesting.

For example, last summer we flew to Minneapolis (from our home in NJ) spent a few days there, then got on the AMTRAK to East Glacier Park. Got off in East Glacier and rented a car for 3 days to tour around. Then we got back on AMTRAK in East Glacier and took the trian to Portland, Oregon. We spent two nights in Portland before flying to San Jose.

We call this a "Trains-Planes & Automobile" trip and me and my husband really enjoy the pace and variety.

We alway get a sleeper-room on the train & we never spend more than one overnight in a row.

It's important to make your plans with enough time cushion so your not totally screwed if the train is delayed. That's why we usually plan for 2 nights in a city after arriving by AMTRAK. And we try to pick a hotel with a decent cancelation policy just in case but the I've only experienced a 3 hour delay and we were prepared and it wasnt a problem.

Hi montaya,

From your more recent post, I see the majority opinion here has persuaded you that your Amtrak plan is not a good idea. I've come to believe that the majority opinion is not wrong about Amtrak's long-distance routes. These opinions have been formed based on fair grievances: frustration when the train arrives hours late, a desiring to pull their hair as they ask why should they be sitting so long when they can fly so much faster, disgust when the bathrooms get dirty sometimes due to impolite previous passengers, food not up to their standard, analyzing costs and seeing they could have flown in some cases more cheaply, can't sleep due to bumpiness, etc...

This said, I'm in the minority opinion with Amtrak. I've loved my experience with the national train system and actually come up with vacations that allow me to include a train ride. For long distance travel, I go with a roommette, which gives me my own private space, bed and bathroom. Some people can sleep upright in coach; generally I can't, but I have no problem on the bed. The food in the dining car, as opposed to the snack bar, *I* find is as good as what gets on a transatlantic flight for a European airline such as KLM. Which, as for KLM, has a certain degree of hit or miss with passengers. I generally find the dining car (as opposed to the snack bar) food which comes with the price of a sleeper ticket ranges from OK to sometimes quite good.

I find it so Zen and Zen time is something I treasure in this day and age. I love that I have time to read a book, but during the day I find my eyes are often compelled more to look out the window at my surroundings, in some cases due to interesting scenery, in some cases just to ponder an existence in a place far away from home that I'd never see otherwise. I love the interactions with fellow passengers in the dining car and lounge car on the long-distance trains. There's a certain sociability amongst those that take long-distance-trains I think, as we're not always well-understood by our friends & family . So, when we're together, pleasant conversation often comes quite naturally due to having free time and being excited simply about travelling by train and sharing what we're doing. I've noticed that the British Isles & Oceania is well-represented on these routes, which often provides for an interesting international exchange. In some ways, I prefer the long-distance routes to the Northeast Corridor routes. The Northeast Corridor, due to frequent schedules & being competitive with flying in terms of time, is used in a routine fashion by folks commuting with harried schedules & lives. As a result, there's not the same appreciation for the scenery and joy of the art of "travelling" that you find on the long-distance routes.

Lateness is something to contend with. I always make sure I have plans of attack (what would I do if I were 2 hours late? 4 hours late? 8 hours late?) so my Zen state is unperturbed by the lateness. I always assume a long-distance train will be 2-4 hours late; then, as was the case for 3 out of 4 trains I recently took, I was pleasantly surprised when things were on-time.

My suggestion is to try one overnight sleeper this trip (maybe LA--> Portland or Seattle which I hear is a beautiful ride) to see how you like it. I think it's the only way of knowing if you fall into the "majority opinion" or the "minority opinion".

Have fun deciding! Daniel

I'm with Daniel and the other posters who have given you encouragement to travel by train. I try to take one long-distance train trip a year and have done so for many years. Like the other encouraging posters, I strongly suggest getting s sleeping compartment for any overnight segments. After age fifty, I began to regard coach seats for sleeping as an extension of hell.

I have never encountered the dire circumtances many posters describe and I often wonder if they are describing personal experiences or conventional wisdom. The exception is the propensity for lateness. I never time train trips so that being late is an issue for me. I just expect it might happen and, if it does, view it as more opportunity to relax. I have not kept track but I would guess that less than half of my long-distance trips have been late. Like another poster, my latest trip was on ViaRail, not AMTRAK, between Edmonton and Jasper.

In the interest of time, I might suggest using AMTRAK in the more scenic parts of the country and flying between points in other parts.

Whatever you decide, have a great trip.

I'll weigh in again on the pro-train side. Admittedly, my first experience with Amtrak wasn't good - the train ran very late and I swore I'd never ride them again. But from my home to D.C., the route that ran late, it's a good bit cheaper to take Amtrak instead of flying (senior discount doesn't hurt), and certainly more comfortable, so I usually use them for that trip anyway.

On the long train trip I referenced above I had one Amtrak train and one Via Rail train run noticeably late, but like other posters I simply planned for that - and I'd rather wait on a train than in a plane. I loved my roomette and slept well. The food on the Canadian train was better than Amtrak, but Amtrak was fine, especially at dinner. And the scenery was great - just take a look at these photos (not mine) - http://www.seat61.com/california-zep...ifornia_Zephyr.

If Amtrak was a good way to see the USA that would be well known and there would be lots of books about how to do it.