You're viewing a single thread.
It really is crazy how bad the US rail system is. The last time I was taking a trip of about 1000 miles, I looked into taking amtrak. Not only was it more expensive than driving or flying, but it would take significantly longer as well, at 3 days. I know the train themselves are moving faster, and it's due to stops, but that's like 15mh average speed. What year is it?!?
Actually, the trains aren't moving faster. I don't think there's a single significant span of passenger rail rated for more than 60mph in the US.
Plus commuter trains get delayed frequently to make way for cargo trains.
That's because Amtrak only owns their own rails in the NEC (North East Corridor) Boston-NYC-Philly-DC. Everywhere else they are riding on privately owned freight railroad tracks, and the Amtrak trains are often shunted for freight to have priority.
Actually the law states that passenger rail has priority.
It’s just unenforced so freight ignores it
Correct.
Which is illegal, but unenforced
If the government owns the lines, it's a different story, but most of the rail lines in the US are privately owned. So in most of the US commuter rail is using freight tracks on contract, with one of the stipulations being that the freight trains get priority.
Other way around. Amtrak does have priority on all tracks per the 1973 Amtrak Improvement Act. However, this isn't enforced, and the rail companies are kicking and screaming to keep it from being enforced.
Interesting. I had heard that many of the rail lines are used under contract because they're privately owned by the freight companies and that the freight trains having priority was a stipulation of those contracts. Not the lines marked on this map, as those are Amtrak lines, but all the other ones across the country. It might be a local commuter rail thing or something.
Oh no, that’s not owned by Amtrak. Amtrak owns the NEC Boston to DC, but very little of the rest
The map is Amtrak service, which commonly runs on track owned by freight carriers
NY to DC is solid, it’s the one inter-metro train I’ve taken that’s faster than driving or flying (when accounting for security and travel to/from the airport).
Using it really makes you realize how much better the train system could be. Not even bullet trains, and they’re so much better than cars.
Absolutely agree. It's so much less frustrating too
Brightline from Orlando to Miami. It's not fast by international standards but certainly more than 60mph
It's also super expensive so....
The NEC (Acela) is for most of its track, however it’s the same deal only at a higher level.
In theory it’s high speed rail, but only about 50 miles is actually rated at 150 mph, the rest is various speeds lower. There’s some century+ old infrastructure taking it down to like 25 mph in spots. Average speeds end up more like 70 mph.
As far as I know, Amtrak doesn't own any of its own rails. It leases access from freight hauling railroads. Because of this relationship, the freight lines always prioritize their own trains over Amtrak. So Amtrak will always suffer until this changes.
It really is crazy how bad the US rail system is.
It's also crazy to think that at some point in history, it used to be one of the best in the world. And then it got screwed by oil barons.
As bad as it is, when it does work out, it's way, way better than flying.
Took a trip to Minneapolis on Amtrak from Columbus, WI (closest station to my house in Madison). Everything is so much more low key than air travel. Seats are fairly comfy, and have legroom that might even beat first class air travel. Food is . . . no worse than airlines.
Most of all, I didn't feel tired at the end of the trip. Air travel always makes me want to spend the rest of the day in bed.
We'd probably go out of Wisconsin Dells next time. It takes the train an hour to go between the Dells and Columbus, and the extra drive time is less than that. But we also found this wonderful pizzeria not far from the station in Columbus, so idk.
I just don't have the leave to spend 6 of my leave days simply riding a train or waiting at stations.
Another failure of US rail. Slow as hell.
It might mayyyybe make sense if you just happen to find an overnight route so you can sleep instead of having to drive. But that's incredibly rare.
That's only like a 4 hr drive though. I drive farther than that for quick overnight trips all the time.
On a train, your holiday starts the moment you board it.
You can watch movies, play board games, even do cartwheels if you so wished. With a view that is constantly changing.
Have you never had sardine cargo class seats on a train? Or standing? I've experienced both what you described, and also what I described. Most Americans have never experienced either. One thing about a car though, I can blast my tunes with my subs kicking and not piss off the strangers riding next to me. I've had a bunch of nice train trips, but I have had hundreds if not thousands of amazing road trips in a car or on a motorcycle.
It's way more pleasant than a drive. We also have an EV, and while we can make that range, charging infrastructure isn't good in northwest Wisconsin, and the Twin Cities are falling behind there, too. Southeast Wisconsin and Chicagoland are much better.
Trains are generally a better environmental option than EVs, anyway, and they can be a more practical option if we fucking try.
Even as it is, I prefer taking the train on this route if possible.
I probably enjoy driving way more than you do, and that's an understandable difference. But I do spend 90% of my free time where there are no charging stations, which is why I don't have an EV yet. I also never have to drive in traffic because of where I spend my free time and the fact that I live on the outskirts of town. So driving is pretty pleasant. Honestly, sometimes it's amazing. I've had a couple of great train experiences, but nothing that ever touched a great road trip in a car or on a motorcycle. I think another factor for me is time. I've never had more than a week off at once in my life, and I've been working for 40 years. When I do have a vacation, I want to get there quickly, enjoy the drive, enjoy the time there, and enjoy the drive back quickly with the music bumping the whole way. I sometimes fly but if it's under a 24 hr drive away I just drive it straight thru only stopping for fuel. It's amazing watching the landscape change so much in just one day.
If you have the time, Amtrak is a pleasant way to go. You are right about the seats. They are very comfortable and it is nice to walk around on the train and stretch your legs.
My most recent trip on Amtrak was from Effingham IL to Chicago. They only bad part about the trip was the last couple of miles in Chicago. The train stops just a mile or two away from Union Station and we had to wait quite a bit until it was our turn to move into the station.
Edit: I have been corrected by another commenter below. Amtrak owns rails in the NE corridor. Which explains why it operates so much better there.
I'm about to board a 12 hour Amtrak ride from Boston to Richmond. It's a miserable trip (I've done it once before) but for two people round trip it cost us $300 less than any flights we could find when we were looking for tickets a month ago.
I was going from ind to den. The cheapest was $600 round trip. A flight is $150-300 and driving would have cost about $450 in gas. Flight and drive would have me arriving the same day.
Plus adding a passenger doubles that while not much affecting the car price.
Northeast coordinator is where Amtrak is at its best. Their coverage of the rest of the country is only barely worthwhile on cost and time.
That's not any better in Europe. This is just a random map of some rail tracks. Trying getting from Porto to Rome by train. On this map it would appear as there should be multiple routes. In reality you'll be lucky to get it done in 3 days.
That's a 2500km journey across 4 countries, taking about 43h by train including an overnight layover in Madrid.
And most of the journey is beelining it straight toward the destination, from Porto to Madrid, Barcelona, Narbonne, Marseille, Nice, Genova, Rome (plus minor stops along the way).
Flying is more reasonable at that distance (and likely cheaper), but I don't see how the train network is at fault here.
On google maps its 40h while with car its 24. That means its faster with train because with cars you have to stop to rest so thats 2 or 3 days. At that point airplanes make much more sense.
with cars you have to stop to rest
Depends. Two people can drive in shifts to move continuously. I've done this a few times over here in the US. Not the greatest experience, but if you have to haul something there fast...
It's probably as good as it is in the UK. It would cost me roughly £20k+ a year to travel 90 mins to work if I were to stay at my job in London. On the bright side, the trains are so unreliable that I would claw some of that back through delay repay...