JBHapgood

One would think that with the terrible ordeal air travel has become there would be a significant clamor for trains as an alternative for short and medium-length trips. But that doesn't seem to be happening. It may be a chicken-and-egg problem, with trains so inconvenient and unreliable that people don't even consider them.

redsoxgal, if you're planning a trip from Oakland to Los Angeles on the scenic Coast Starlight, you had best reserve an extra day in Oakland. The train runs anywhere from 5 to 14 hours late due to construction and freight train congestion in Washington and Oregon. That train has perhaps the worst track record (as it were) for adherence to schedule, but other trains aren't much better.

Long distance trains are great for people with lots of time, and who have no pressing need to arrive at their destination on any particular schedule. Retirees and foreign visitors may be able to do that, but not most Americans who consider themselves very fortunate to have two weeks of vacation time per year.

farrermog

I'm another keeping a watching eye (with no firm plans as yet)on the experiences of long distance train travellers in the US and Canada.

In 1979 as a young(ish) backpacker with a North American Greyhound Bus Pass I travelled some 20,000 km in 5 weeks, traversing 34 US states, DC, and 6 Canadian provinces on something like 75 separate scheduled services. At the point of exhaustion after a couple of 4 and 5 night stints on the bus (trying to 'wash' at Greyhound terminals was an interesting experience!), I nevertheless had a great time, enlivened by some (let me say) memorable and questionable characters and a copy of every local newspaper I could buy - as well as helping to pass the time on longer legs, I found the reporting so much more refreshing/ bizarre/ deliciously defamatory than here in Australia.

Needless to say, downtown bus terminals are not my scene these days and even with their shortcomings trains appear a better option for family travel in North America.