Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Guess that rests on what your definition of "pleasant" means.
Persons routinely drive between NY and Boston, NY and North Carolina, NY and Florida and hundreds of similar routes all over the USA without complaints. Each of those routes are > seven hours each way.
Everyone's got their own tolerance level for sitting in a car. More than three hours is enough to make me look into other ways of getting there, at least if we're talking about a bland stretch of multi-lane freeway. A truly fun and interesting road trip is a different matter, and for me the tolerance level goes up considerably. Then again, the roads that are fun typically aren't the fastest ones overall, so it becomes another case of taking longer to get there while enjoying the journey more.
Everyone's got their own tolerance level for sitting in a car. More than three hours is enough to make me look into other ways of getting there, at least if we're talking about a bland stretch of multi-lane freeway. A truly fun and interesting road trip is a different matter, and for me the tolerance level goes up considerably. Then again, the roads that are fun typically aren't the fastest ones overall, so it becomes another case of taking longer to get there while enjoying the journey more.
Just to defend Amtrak travel -- it works extremely well in the northeast corridor. I've made the trip between Boston and Washington, D.C. many times. It gets you from downtown to downtown in about 6.5 hours for about $120 one way. The Acela cuts the trip by about an hour and is nicer, but costs $200. That's cheaper and faster than flying when you consider the 2 hours early you need to arrive at the airport, AND it gets you directly downtown. Definitely faster than driving through New York traffic. It's so convenient I've encountered people who went on evening dates from NYC to Boston or vice versa. Providence, Connecticut, Philadelphia, Wilmington, Baltimore... all the points in between are really fast.
Outside the Boston-DC corridor, however... not so good.
The gov't runs Amtrak but it only owns the track in that northeast corridor. Everywhere else RR track is privately owned and freight has the right of way. I've sat on Amtrak for a good 2 hours outside a city like St. Louis waiting for freight to pass. That combined with speed limits on trains so they can't go fast enough to make the trip competitive with flying makes it a poor choice unless you just don't care about your time.
I always check Amtrak when I plan travel, but for the cost weighed against the time, it's never worth it. If I'm going to travel 40+ hours it better damn well be half the cost of flying and it never is. Greyhound is often faster and cheaper than Amtrak - beating Amtrak by half a day or more on long distance trips.
UNLESS I'm travelling btw DC and Boston, in which case Amtrak is the best deal by far.
Huge difference between European RRs and those in the United States is about speed and weight/crash worthy design of trains.
US federal government mandates that trains running over a certain speed have in cab signaling instead of track side/above. On the NEC at least the fomer Pennsy ROW from NYC to Washington DC long ago installed in cab signaling because it was required when the great PR GG1 electric locomotives pulled fast passenger trains. Outside of that few RR ROWs in the USA have such technology and aren't interested in the cost and expense of installing. Why should they, they run mainly freight trains and or "slow" passenger service.
In Europe OTOH when HSR lines were built in cab signaling was done as ROWs were built and or upgraded to handle the new fast trains. Again much of this expense came from government funds to state run or owned railroads.
The other difference is that American laws mandate passenger trains be able to withstand crash impact with freight trains since they often run on the same tracks. This means locomotives and trains in the USA are heavier than say those found in Europe. Indeed when seeking bids to build the Acela the Swiss, German and French HSR sets all had to be "bulked up" to meet USA crash requirements. That extra weight is still part of Amtrak's Acela train sets and is one of the reasons they cannot move as fast as their French cousins.
OTOH European HSR and IIRC normal passenger trains as well rely more upon avoidance. That is passenger trains are kept well spaced from freight and in the case of some lines such as HSR the lines are dedicated strictly to passenger trains.
Overall in cab signaling is probably one of the largest obstacles to rolling out more HSR in the USA. It is very expensive and few lines outside of the NEC have the density of trains to support such an upgrade of ROW.
Huge difference between European RRs and those in the United States is about speed and weight/crash worthy design of trains.
US federal government mandates that trains running over a certain speed have in cab signaling instead of track side/above. On the NEC at least the fomer Pennsy ROW from NYC to Washington DC long ago installed in cab signaling because it was required when the great PR GG1 electric locomotives pulled fast passenger trains. Outside of that few RR ROWs in the USA have such technology and aren't interested in the cost and expense of installing. Why should they, they run mainly freight trains and or "slow" passenger service.
In Europe OTOH when HSR lines were built in cab signaling was done as ROWs were built and or upgraded to handle the new fast trains. Again much of this expense came from government funds to state run or owned railroads.
The other difference is that American laws mandate passenger trains be able to withstand crash impact with freight trains since they often run on the same tracks. This means locomotives and trains in the USA are heavier than say those found in Europe. Indeed when seeking bids to build the Acela the Swiss, German and French HSR sets all had to be "bulked up" to meet USA crash requirements. That extra weight is still part of Amtrak's Acela train sets and is one of the reasons they cannot move as fast as their French cousins.
OTOH European HSR and IIRC normal passenger trains as well rely more upon avoidance. That is passenger trains are kept well spaced from freight and in the case of some lines such as HSR the lines are dedicated strictly to passenger trains.
Overall in cab signaling is probably one of the largest obstacles to rolling out more HSR in the USA. It is very expensive and few lines outside of the NEC have the density of trains to support such an upgrade of ROW.
Huge difference between European RRs and those in the United States is about speed and weight/crash worthy design of trains.
US federal government mandates that trains running over a certain speed have in cab signaling instead of track side/above. On the NEC at least the fomer Pennsy ROW from NYC to Washington DC long ago installed in cab signaling because it was required when the great PR GG1 electric locomotives pulled fast passenger trains. Outside of that few RR ROWs in the USA have such technology and aren't interested in the cost and expense of installing. Why should they, they run mainly freight trains and or "slow" passenger service.
In Europe OTOH when HSR lines were built in cab signaling was done as ROWs were built and or upgraded to handle the new fast trains. Again much of this expense came from government funds to state run or owned railroads.
The other difference is that American laws mandate passenger trains be able to withstand crash impact with freight trains since they often run on the same tracks. This means locomotives and trains in the USA are heavier than say those found in Europe. Indeed when seeking bids to build the Acela the Swiss, German and French HSR sets all had to be "bulked up" to meet USA crash requirements. That extra weight is still part of Amtrak's Acela train sets and is one of the reasons they cannot move as fast as their French cousins.
OTOH European HSR and IIRC normal passenger trains as well rely more upon avoidance. That is passenger trains are kept well spaced from freight and in the case of some lines such as HSR the lines are dedicated strictly to passenger trains.
Overall in cab signaling is probably one of the largest obstacles to rolling out more HSR in the USA. It is very expensive and few lines outside of the NEC have the density of trains to support such an upgrade of ROW.
Just goes to show how hopelessly backward and primitive the system is. Passenger rail is pretty much dead in the water and has been for ages, on the American continent anyway. Forget high speed rail. We can't even build a decent conventional service. Put a nail in it.
High speed rail would be built from the ground up for in-cab signaling, since they wouldn't share ROW with freight trains that don't need it.
Nobody complains that an ocean liner doesn't get you from Point a to Point B fast enough, because it's more about the journey than the destination. Taking an Amtrak sleeper is typically about taking the trip, not getting there quickly. If you want to get there fast, it's probably not going to be your mode of choice. But for plenty of other people it's a lot of fun.
Is a sleeper cheap? No. But if you want to go cheap, you can take coach. You get there in the same amount of time. Sleeper service is first-class service, and includes meals, which makes up a good chunk of the price.
I just get the sense that a lot of people here criticizing Amtrak long distance service have no actual experience of it--they're criticizing it based on what they think it is like.
Sleeper trains are missing a lot of luxury that cruise liners have. But I generally think cruise liners are stupid as well. I'd actually like to take an Alaskan cruise, but as far as Hawaii? That's nuts. Just fly there. It takes four days to get from San Francisco to Hawaii via cruise boat.
High speed rail would be built from the ground up for in-cab signaling, since they wouldn't share ROW with freight trains that don't need it.
Nobody complains that an ocean liner doesn't get you from Point a to Point B fast enough, because it's more about the journey than the destination. Taking an Amtrak sleeper is typically about taking the trip, not getting there quickly. If you want to get there fast, it's probably not going to be your mode of choice. But for plenty of other people it's a lot of fun.
Is a sleeper cheap? No. But if you want to go cheap, you can take coach. You get there in the same amount of time. Sleeper service is first-class service, and includes meals, which makes up a good chunk of the price.
I just get the sense that a lot of people here criticizing Amtrak long distance service have no actual experience of it--they're criticizing it based on what they think it is like.
Ocean liners are pretty much dead for the same reason sleeper train service is. Flying is faster. Cruise ships don't go from point A to point B. They depart go on an trip and arrive back at the same port. Cruise ships mostly can operate at an profit without the need for government subsidy, rail can't.
I have taken the train overnight and love rail but it is not practical in many instances. Too slow, and still need an car when you arrive at your destination(might as well drive and save money on an rental). Not to mention being limited by lack of service(few trains daily or at inconvenient times).
Driving, riding the bus and flying are all competing methods of travel that leave very little business left for the train.
Sleeper trains are missing a lot of luxury that cruise liners have. But I generally think cruise liners are stupid as well. I'd actually like to take an Alaskan cruise, but as far as Hawaii? That's nuts. Just fly there. It takes four days to get from San Francisco to Hawaii via cruise boat.
Cruises can be fun(done them) but what makes them practical is the fact that where ever you go you need an hotel to stay(as well as possibly an rental) so an cruise than goes to multiple places is an efficient use of time.
There is also much more to do on an boat than on an train. I have not spent four days at sea but I have spent about 2 days and it was enjoyable(think any more than that could be an problem). I have not seen any California to Hawaii trips but I have seen some where you fly to Hawaii and board the ship and get taken around the islands.
Sleeper service on an train really can't compare. An cruise ship acts as an hotel overnight and while in port. The train will not spend an day at any location. A train ride is point A to point B for the most part an Cruise trip isn't. Cruise ships have lots of entertainment and dinning options, rail cars don't.
Last edited by chirack; 06-14-2014 at 02:08 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
