Train from St Louis to Chicago (St. Louis: crime, university, to live)

[Fishtacos]

I drive as it's the most convenient. There's always a little bit of traffic near Midway exit but otherwise a straight shot to Lakeshore via 55. Tack on a few minutes to twenty depending on where you live from there.

Amtrak is a roll of the dice. One time years ago, after a 9 hour Amtrak ride, I made it my last.
Flying Southwest to Midway would be my first non-driving choice.

[WUSTL '14]

I concur that driving is the most convenient option. Unfortunately, I don't have a car (college student) and a 6 to 9 hr train ride does not sound appealing. I can deal with a 4hr ride, but for the time being, I will probably fly if I have to go to Chicago.

[moorlander]

I can't argue with flying but I would like to point out a few things about taking the train.

- convenient arrival in Downtown Chicago Loop.
- Easy parking in DT St. Louis
- No security lines
- bags ride free
- Bigger seats than plane
- Bar Car
- You can bring your own food/beverage/beer cooler

[DarkWolf]

I think the Midwestern Network has a very promising future. I think MO & IL govts should have found private investors and pushed for a true high Speed Rail line and not an Intercity line. But i think this line will do well , i think its one of the few lines outside the NE that Amtrak doesn't need a subsided for.

[Fishtacos]

Originally Posted by WUSTL '14

I concur that driving is the most convenient option. Unfortunately, I don't have a car (college student) and a 6 to 9 hr train ride does not sound appealing. I can deal with a 4hr ride, but for the time being, I will probably fly if I have to go to Chicago.

Catch a ride with a fellow student and pitch in for gas money.
Rent a car with a group.
Take the Megabus.
Take the train. The problem as previously mentioned is that Amtrak doesn't get first dibs to the tracks and the frequent stops to wait for something to get out of the way add up. If that ever improves where the trip is 4hrs or less, then train is the way to go...but not until that happens. It isn't the same as that 90 minute Amtrak from Milwaukee to Chicago downtown to downtown door to door(with stops included). Although at least the area to pick up the train is no longer a shady parking lot mobile home type set up in Stl. That just happened within the past year plus or so.

[imperialmog]

Originally Posted by Nexis4Jersey

I think the Midwestern Network has a very promising future. I think MO & IL govts should have found private investors and pushed for a true high Speed Rail line and not an Intercity line. But i think this line will do well , i think its one of the few lines outside the NE that Amtrak doesn't need a subsided for.

The key to success is going to be what the average speed for the trains will be. My guess is anything under 150mph is not going to work out since it has to be faster than driving to have a shot of being effective. When some of the reports were talking about a range of 100-120mph top speed and calling it high speed rail that is a lie. If that is all they can do it makes it hard to justify doing anything since it will sour any public desire for any future upgrades.

[DarkWolf]

Originally Posted by imperialmog

The key to success is going to be what the average speed for the trains will be. My guess is anything under 150mph is not going to work out since it has to be faster than driving to have a shot of being effective. When some of the reports were talking about a range of 100-120mph top speed and calling it high speed rail that is a lie. If that is all they can do it makes it hard to justify doing anything since it will sour any public desire for any future upgrades.

Yea i know , the Govt thinks were all stupid about this ......but the truth is China keeps showing off there HSR and makes our govt look stupid.......I think 140+ is ok , there are diesel trains that can do that. They have them in Britain and Germany. 80-120mph can be done with distances like Chicago to Madison or Milwaukee anything greater then that needs to be 170+. I think the Govt needs to really push for a line between Chicago and NYC via Philly. That can be a showcase to the Nation on HSR , since it would undoubtedly be used to 100% capacity in a few months. The Govt also needs to push for more Private - Public type HSL's , this Chicago - St. Louis line could have been built to 220mph with Private money and operated by the govt , it works for some projects in Europe and Asia. If they did that i think the Midwest can build there dream HSR network. But it all comes back to averages , 110mph means an average of 70-80mph. Such a waste , even the Acela can't even average above 110mph for the Majority of its trip. Although that will be an Average of 160mph by the end of the decade......to be fair the Northeast states recognizes 120mph with Electrified lines as HSR , and i think Britain recognizes 130 for HSR. But still why does every region outside the Northeast call HSR 110mph?

[MagisterEquitum]

Speaking as a college student: Never fly if the drive is under 6 hours. It's super expensive, such a nerve-trasher, there's a good chance you'll get delayed and miss class (happens all the time to people around Thxgiving, for example) and there's something special about being able to pull of on the side of the road and eat.

I'm going to go ahead and assume you're entering your first year at WashU, and add that you'll probably be able to find someone going to Chicago nearly every weekend. And, also, the train ride really is worth it for a few hundred dollars less. Remember--sleeping on the train is always easy. Sleeping on a flight is not. Also, you can totally take substances onto the train with you, which is great.

[WUSTL '14]

^
Thx for the advice. It's a shame that underclassmen aren't allowed to have cars on campus. You're right: I shouldn't have any problems finding Chicago-bound upperclassmen anyway.

[imperialmog]

Originally Posted by Nexis4Jersey

Yea i know , the Govt thinks were all stupid about this ......but the truth is China keeps showing off there HSR and makes our govt look stupid.......I think 140+ is ok , there are diesel trains that can do that. They have them in Britain and Germany. 80-120mph can be done with distances like Chicago to Madison or Milwaukee anything greater then that needs to be 170+. I think the Govt needs to really push for a line between Chicago and NYC via Philly. That can be a showcase to the Nation on HSR , since it would undoubtedly be used to 100% capacity in a few months. The Govt also needs to push for more Private - Public type HSL's , this Chicago - St. Louis line could have been built to 220mph with Private money and operated by the govt , it works for some projects in Europe and Asia. If they did that i think the Midwest can build there dream HSR network. But it all comes back to averages , 110mph means an average of 70-80mph. Such a waste , even the Acela can't even average above 110mph for the Majority of its trip. Although that will be an Average of 160mph by the end of the decade......to be fair the Northeast states recognizes 120mph with Electrified lines as HSR , and i think Britain recognizes 130 for HSR. But still why does every region outside the Northeast call HSR 110mph?

Also if they go to slow for long distances it won't get much more travel than current and it might kill any future upgrades since the public will be turned off on rail travel since it is done in an incompetant way.

Originally Posted by MagisterEquitum

Speaking as a college student: Never fly if the drive is under 6 hours. It's super expensive, such a nerve-trasher, there's a good chance you'll get delayed and miss class (happens all the time to people around Thxgiving, for example) and there's something special about being able to pull of on the side of the road and eat.

I'm going to go ahead and assume you're entering your first year at WashU, and add that you'll probably be able to find someone going to Chicago nearly every weekend. And, also, the train ride really is worth it for a few hundred dollars less. Remember--sleeping on the train is always easy. Sleeping on a flight is not. Also, you can totally take substances onto the train with you, which is great.

Generally it is cheaper and quite possibly faster to get from point a to point b by driving rather than flying if you are going up to around 300-400 miles away. It also depends on what directions you are from the airport in either place that can make it further. And places as far as 9-10 hours away might not take much longer driving than flying and is possibly only cheaper if you are going alone. A good example is that it isn't much longer timewise to drive to Atlanta from St. Louis than flying there considering all of the hassles of air travel. This is really true if you aren't passing by the airport out of St. Louis and/or going to spots on the North side of the Atlanta area due to the location of the airport South of the city. (and most travel there would be to the North side due to development)