# Government Passenger Rail (Amtrak)



## DGS49

I recently completed a two-overnite trip on Amtrak from Pittsburgh to Denver.

I had only once traveled on Amtrak, in a transportation emergency, and it was kind of OK, but I'd never overnited, and frankly I pushed my wife into it because I wanted to see what the experience was like.  Certainly it's no cheaper than Air, but let's see.

First night we were leaving Pittsburgh at midnight, so I thought I'd chance it and just get regular seating.  It would theoretically be more comfortable than airplane seating, so possibly OK to sleep overnight.  The seats were not particularly comfortable, there was noise all over the place, the ride was worse than I've experienced in either sea travel or air, and I was somewhat surprised to learn that throughout the night, every time the train went over a road crossing, the Engineer blows the horn repeatedly.  All.  Night.  Long.

In short, it was a terrible night.  Got essentially no sleep at all.

So we switched to a Cabin-ette for the second night.  It is a microscopic affair with an upper and lower bunk, and no room whatsoever to do anything once it is set up for sleeping.  The cabin attendant was very courteous and competent, but he couldn't make a bad situation good.  Same noises, same rocking and rolling, and a little bit more comfortable "bed."  Slept a few hours, but laid awake for most of the night.

Amtrak has not mastered the advance science of loudspeakers.  Announcements were near-impossible to hear, largely contradictory, and seldom offered any valuable information.  On night number 2, we rode through a severe thunderstorm that felled a tree on the tracks in front of us.  Well, not much you can do about that.  Amtrak leases the track from Burlington Northern, and we had to wait for them to send a crew to clear the track and inspect for damage.  But as a result of the delay, we had to ALSO wait for another crew because the existing crew had run out of time.  throughout this EIGHT-HOUR DELAY, there was not a single P.A. announcement telling us what the fuck was going on or how long the problem was likely to last.  Our official notice of when we would arrive in Denver came when...we arrived in Denver.

As bad as air travel has become, it is still miles ahead of rail, at least when Amtrak is the mode being compared.  I would consider Amtrak for a daytrip on occasion, and in fact they gave us a coupon for $200 to compensate for our MISSING OUR BUS TOUR IN DENVER, and we may use that for a day-trip to Philadelphia later this year.  But over night?  Not on your life.

One can only wonder how it would be if Amtrak were replaced by some number of regional, privately-owned rail carriers.  No doubt they would still be sucking the hind teat with respect to freight traffic, so they would have some considerable obstacles to overcome, but I can't believe it would be this bad.

With the possible exception of Social Security, I can't think of anything that government does well.


----------



## Pogo

DGS49 said:


> I recently completed a two-overnite trip on Amtrak from Pittsburgh to Denver.
> 
> I had only once traveled on Amtrak, in a transportation emergency, and it was kind of OK, but I'd never overnited, and frankly I pushed my wife into it because I wanted to see what the experience was like.  Certainly it's no cheaper than Air, but let's see.
> 
> First night we were leaving Pittsburgh at midnight, so I thought I'd chance it and just get regular seating.  It would theoretically be more comfortable than airplane seating, so possibly OK to sleep overnight.  The seats were not particularly comfortable, there was noise all over the place, the ride was worse than I've experienced in either sea travel or air, and I was somewhat surprised to learn that throughout the night, every time the train went over a road crossing, the Engineer blows the horn repeatedly.  All.  Night.  Long.
> 
> In short, it was a terrible night.  Got essentially no sleep at all.
> 
> So we switched to a Cabin-ette for the second night.  It is a microscopic affair with an upper and lower bunk, and no room whatsoever to do anything once it is set up for sleeping.  The cabin attendant was very courteous and competent, but he couldn't make a bad situation good.  Same noises, same rocking and rolling, and a little bit more comfortable "bed."  Slept a few hours, but laid awake for most of the night.
> 
> Amtrak has not mastered the advance science of loudspeakers.  Announcements were near-impossible to hear, largely contradictory, and seldom offered any valuable information.  On night number 2, we rode through a severe thunderstorm that felled a tree on the tracks in front of us.  Well, not much you can do about that.  Amtrak leases the track from Burlington Northern, and we had to wait for them to send a crew to clear the track and inspect for damage.  But as a result of the delay, we had to ALSO wait for another crew because the existing crew had run out of time.  throughout this EIGHT-HOUR DELAY, there was not a single P.A. announcement telling us what the fuck was going on or how long the problem was likely to last.  Our official notice of when we would arrive in Denver came when...we arrived in Denver.
> 
> As bad as air travel has become, it is still miles ahead of rail, at least when Amtrak is the mode being compared.  I would consider Amtrak for a daytrip on occasion, and in fact they gave us a coupon for $200 to compensate for our MISSING OUR BUS TOUR IN DENVER, and we may use that for a day-trip to Philadelphia later this year.  But over night?  Not on your life.
> 
> One can only wonder how it would be if Amtrak were replaced by some number of regional, privately-owned rail carriers.  No doubt they would still be sucking the hind teat with respect to freight traffic, so they would have some considerable obstacles to overcome, but I can't believe it would be this bad.
> 
> With the possible exception of Social Security, I can't think of anything that government does well.



I took Amtrak to the west coast (from New Orleans).  Don't remember how many days it was, more than two definitely.  Way cheaper than flying but yes sleeping is evasive.  On the other hand the meals are way better than a plane..  Also had an unforgettably lovely ride from Chicago to Philadelphia along the New River in West Virginia because sometimes track is laid where nothing else goes.


----------



## fncceo

AMTRAK took over passenger service in much of the US because railroads refused to provide the service ... even though mandated to provide the service by the government. 

Commercial railroad could not make passenger rail service profitable, compared to freight.

I took a transcontinental train trip -- Los Angeles to Miami, in 1966 with my family ... it was a nightmare.  By this time, railroads had cut back on all amenities to cut costs, no sleepers, no dining cars (only vending machines and microwave ovens).

Since taking over, AMTRAK has received Billions in government subsidies to provide a service that was no longer wanted by the vast majority of the American public.

Passenger rail service in the US should have died a dignified death in 1971


----------



## Pogo

fncceo said:


> AMTRAK took over passenger service in much of the US because railroads refused to provide the service ... even though mandated to provide the service by the government.
> 
> Commercial railroad could not make passenger rail service profitable, compared to freight.
> 
> I took a transcontinental train trip -- Los Angeles to Miami, in 1966 with my family ... it was a nightmare.  By this time, railroads had cut back on all amenities to cut costs, no sleepers, no dining cars (only vending machines and microwave ovens).
> 
> Since taking over, AMTRAK has received Billions in government subsidies to provide a service that was no longer wanted by the vast majority of the American public.
> 
> Passenger rail service in the US should have died a dignified death in 1971



It's a bit of a catch-22.  People _can't _take rail if it doesn't run.

There are plenty of rail lines around here but you can't ride on them.  Found that out when I needed to get to a small town in Ohio and I had to hire a ride to drive me over 100 miles just to get to the first train.  So around here if you don't have a car you're pretty much fucked.


----------



## frigidweirdo

DGS49 said:


> I recently completed a two-overnite trip on Amtrak from Pittsburgh to Denver.
> 
> I had only once traveled on Amtrak, in a transportation emergency, and it was kind of OK, but I'd never overnited, and frankly I pushed my wife into it because I wanted to see what the experience was like.  Certainly it's no cheaper than Air, but let's see.
> 
> First night we were leaving Pittsburgh at midnight, so I thought I'd chance it and just get regular seating.  It would theoretically be more comfortable than airplane seating, so possibly OK to sleep overnight.  The seats were not particularly comfortable, there was noise all over the place, the ride was worse than I've experienced in either sea travel or air, and I was somewhat surprised to learn that throughout the night, every time the train went over a road crossing, the Engineer blows the horn repeatedly.  All.  Night.  Long.
> 
> In short, it was a terrible night.  Got essentially no sleep at all.
> 
> So we switched to a Cabin-ette for the second night.  It is a microscopic affair with an upper and lower bunk, and no room whatsoever to do anything once it is set up for sleeping.  The cabin attendant was very courteous and competent, but he couldn't make a bad situation good.  Same noises, same rocking and rolling, and a little bit more comfortable "bed."  Slept a few hours, but laid awake for most of the night.
> 
> Amtrak has not mastered the advance science of loudspeakers.  Announcements were near-impossible to hear, largely contradictory, and seldom offered any valuable information.  On night number 2, we rode through a severe thunderstorm that felled a tree on the tracks in front of us.  Well, not much you can do about that.  Amtrak leases the track from Burlington Northern, and we had to wait for them to send a crew to clear the track and inspect for damage.  But as a result of the delay, we had to ALSO wait for another crew because the existing crew had run out of time.  throughout this EIGHT-HOUR DELAY, there was not a single P.A. announcement telling us what the fuck was going on or how long the problem was likely to last.  Our official notice of when we would arrive in Denver came when...we arrived in Denver.
> 
> As bad as air travel has become, it is still miles ahead of rail, at least when Amtrak is the mode being compared.  I would consider Amtrak for a daytrip on occasion, and in fact they gave us a coupon for $200 to compensate for our MISSING OUR BUS TOUR IN DENVER, and we may use that for a day-trip to Philadelphia later this year.  But over night?  Not on your life.
> 
> One can only wonder how it would be if Amtrak were replaced by some number of regional, privately-owned rail carriers.  No doubt they would still be sucking the hind teat with respect to freight traffic, so they would have some considerable obstacles to overcome, but I can't believe it would be this bad.
> 
> With the possible exception of Social Security, I can't think of anything that government does well.



I did Amtrack nearly 20 years ago. From NY to Chicago, Chicago to New Orleans was two 24 hour journeys. 

The food nearly killed me. I'm not kidding, made me ill both times. And it was only microwave food. 

From Chicago to New Orleans there were only three people in my carriage, and a full one next door. Still not comfortable. 

Got speaking to this black conductor, or whatever you call the people that look after people on long haul trains. Was telling how he'd never get promoted because he was black.

From New Orleans to Atlanta some guy got forcibly removed from the train, real fucking brain dead kind of policing going on there.

Train from Atlanta to Phillie got cancelled because of a Hurricane, apparently their trains can't move through 2 foot of water or something.


----------



## fncceo

Pogo said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> AMTRAK took over passenger service in much of the US because railroads refused to provide the service ... even though mandated to provide the service by the government.
> 
> Commercial railroad could not make passenger rail service profitable, compared to freight.
> 
> I took a transcontinental train trip -- Los Angeles to Miami, in 1966 with my family ... it was a nightmare.  By this time, railroads had cut back on all amenities to cut costs, no sleepers, no dining cars (only vending machines and microwave ovens).
> 
> Since taking over, AMTRAK has received Billions in government subsidies to provide a service that was no longer wanted by the vast majority of the American public.
> 
> Passenger rail service in the US should have died a dignified death in 1971
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a bit of a catch-22.  People _can't _take rail if it doesn't run.
> 
> There are plenty of rail lines around here but you can't ride on them.  Found that out when I needed to get to a small town in Ohio and I had to hire a ride to drive me over 100 miles just to get to the first train.  So around here if you don't have a car you're pretty much fucked.
Click to expand...


When I travelled parts of Europe as a tourist, there were times when rail availability and my travel plans didnt match.   I found the best solution was to hire a driver to take me between railheads. It also afforded me a chance to get a local perspective in the trip.

And Europe is tiny compared to the US.  It's just not cost effective to provide passenger rail to all the places that folks might want to go.


----------



## Camp

Cross country train travel in America is for adventuresome young adults in good shape hauling their luggage in backpacks and having deep pockets. For everyone else deep pockets that allow for about six hours a day travel time per day and a schedule, that provides for fine dining and luxury Hotels.


----------



## Pogo

fncceo said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> AMTRAK took over passenger service in much of the US because railroads refused to provide the service ... even though mandated to provide the service by the government.
> 
> Commercial railroad could not make passenger rail service profitable, compared to freight.
> 
> I took a transcontinental train trip -- Los Angeles to Miami, in 1966 with my family ... it was a nightmare.  By this time, railroads had cut back on all amenities to cut costs, no sleepers, no dining cars (only vending machines and microwave ovens).
> 
> Since taking over, AMTRAK has received Billions in government subsidies to provide a service that was no longer wanted by the vast majority of the American public.
> 
> Passenger rail service in the US should have died a dignified death in 1971
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a bit of a catch-22.  People _can't _take rail if it doesn't run.
> 
> There are plenty of rail lines around here but you can't ride on them.  Found that out when I needed to get to a small town in Ohio and I had to hire a ride to drive me over 100 miles just to get to the first train.  So around here if you don't have a car you're pretty much fucked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When I travelled parts of Europe as a tourist, there were times when rail availability and my travel plans didnt match.   I found the best solution was to hire a driver to take me between railheads. It also afforded me a chance to get a local perspective in the trip.
> 
> And Europe is tiny compared to the US.  It's just not cost effective to provide passenger rail to all the places that folks might want to go.
Click to expand...


I trained about everywhere I went in Europe at least when I was vagabonding in France, including to some very very rural places.  Big to a smaller train to another smaller train sort of thing.

Ireland I had a rented car though.  It's way more rustic.


----------



## Camp

fncceo said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> AMTRAK took over passenger service in much of the US because railroads refused to provide the service ... even though mandated to provide the service by the government.
> 
> Commercial railroad could not make passenger rail service profitable, compared to freight.
> 
> I took a transcontinental train trip -- Los Angeles to Miami, in 1966 with my family ... it was a nightmare.  By this time, railroads had cut back on all amenities to cut costs, no sleepers, no dining cars (only vending machines and microwave ovens).
> 
> Since taking over, AMTRAK has received Billions in government subsidies to provide a service that was no longer wanted by the vast majority of the American public.
> 
> Passenger rail service in the US should have died a dignified death in 1971
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a bit of a catch-22.  People _can't _take rail if it doesn't run.
> 
> There are plenty of rail lines around here but you can't ride on them.  Found that out when I needed to get to a small town in Ohio and I had to hire a ride to drive me over 100 miles just to get to the first train.  So around here if you don't have a car you're pretty much fucked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When I travelled parts of Europe as a tourist, there were times when rail availability and my travel plans didnt match.   I found the best solution was to hire a driver to take me between railheads. It also afforded me a chance to get a local perspective in the trip.
> 
> And Europe is tiny compared to the US.  It's just not cost effective to provide passenger rail to all the places that folks might want to go.
Click to expand...

Ya, but they have real beds and those kinds of big compartments like you would see in old movies. Plus, like you said, you can find "buses" which are often just vans, even mini-vans to haul you from station to station.


----------



## DGS49

I guess I should have mentioned a few good things.  The food and food service were good, the scenery was good - better than driving.  The seats were pretty good - better than airplane.  More opportunities to meet people than on a plane, and we did meet several interesting people and had long conversations over meals.

It's not all bad.


----------



## malnila

I took a overnight Amtrak from L.A. to Salem, OR about 20 yrs ago. Would have been fine if it wasn't an El Nino year so got stopped near Mt Shasta due to mud slides in front and behind our train. No announcement whatsoever when our Amtrak bus was loading to take us to Salem. Only by the grace of God did we see buses loading and found out we were being bused. As far as accommodations, not a prob for me falling asleep on the train and the food was great since air, you have to provide your own. I really want to take either the Orient Express or the Royal Canadian. They have sleeper cars like in the olden days so there's more room even if your bunks have been made.


----------



## Pogo

DGS49 said:


> I guess I should have mentioned a few good things.  The food and food service were good, the scenery was good - better than driving.  The seats were pretty good - better than airplane.  More opportunities to meet people than on a plane, and we did meet several interesting people and had long conversations over meals.
> 
> It's not all bad.



All of that is true, I found the same things.  And it's quite a selling point list.

What you might have mentioned though is the obsession the thread started with.  What do I mean?
Well when I think of "Amtrak" --- or any rail service at all --- many things come to mind including the scenery, the timing, the environment, the passenger interaction .... but none of them is "government'.  I've ridden many an SNCF train in France and never once did I stop and ponder "what's the French government got to do with this?".  

Same with Amtrak -- I wondered where we were at the moment, what that passenger's story is, what's on the dinner menu, how far are we off schedule, what's that weird set of lights out there --- never occurred to me to think about "the government".  Come to think of it I've been on many an airline flight and never thought about "the government" there either, even though if I think about it I know the whole thing depends on the operation of the FAA.  But that's got no relevance to my travel.

It's just a bizarre association.


----------



## martybegan

I just did a cross country trip on Amtrak from NYC to Reno, stopping along the way in Pittsburgh, Chicago, Omaha, Denver and Salt Lake City. I had a wedding in Lake Tahoe to go to so I decided to go by train, giving myself two weeks about to enjoy the country. I just did a coach seat, and each trip segment was from 8-15 hours between the cities. I stayed at least 48 hours in each city except Chicago (36 hours). 

A few things I learned.

1.The trains will be late. They share tracks with freight trains, and the freight companies own the rails. Don't travel by train if you are time constrained.

2. Amish, lots of Amish. They use the train between communities, and for some reason they all vacation in Glenwood Springs, Colorado.

3. Sleeping in the coach seats during night trips takes work getting used to. I had 3 overnight segments and only really got good sleep on the 3rd.

4. The snack car food is microwave/pre-packaged. The diner car food is much better, but still not great.

5. They have booze and beer and wine. 

6. A tradition along the Upper Colorado river for rafters and canoeist is to moon the trains as it's going by

7. Some of the stations can be in the middle of nowhere (or a rail yard). Caution is needed when you arrive in a podunk town station at 3 AM

All in all it was an interesting experience. The ticket cost me around $480 bucks for the trip. One thing that helped is that I stayed in very good hotel rooms in the cities I stopped in.

I also flew back home from Reno, but that was part of the plan.


----------



## DGS49

The reason why I brought up "government" passenger rail was because there were clearly people involved who simply didn't give a shit.  It is inconceivable to me that a privately run transportation company would have an 8-hour delay, whether it was their fault or not, without letting the customers know exactly what was going on, if not a precise arrival time.  Nor would they have a P.A. system that was inaudible in half the train.

Having worked in government for 8 years, I am sensitive to that attitude, which is a major reason why I got out.

My wife and I got surveys from Amtrak yesterday, asking a few questions about our level of satisfaction.  Interestingly, there was no opportunity to write a few words of explanation.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Camp said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> AMTRAK took over passenger service in much of the US because railroads refused to provide the service ... even though mandated to provide the service by the government.
> 
> Commercial railroad could not make passenger rail service profitable, compared to freight.
> 
> I took a transcontinental train trip -- Los Angeles to Miami, in 1966 with my family ... it was a nightmare.  By this time, railroads had cut back on all amenities to cut costs, no sleepers, no dining cars (only vending machines and microwave ovens).
> 
> Since taking over, AMTRAK has received Billions in government subsidies to provide a service that was no longer wanted by the vast majority of the American public.
> 
> Passenger rail service in the US should have died a dignified death in 1971
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a bit of a catch-22.  People _can't _take rail if it doesn't run.
> 
> There are plenty of rail lines around here but you can't ride on them.  Found that out when I needed to get to a small town in Ohio and I had to hire a ride to drive me over 100 miles just to get to the first train.  So around here if you don't have a car you're pretty much fucked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When I travelled parts of Europe as a tourist, there were times when rail availability and my travel plans didnt match.   I found the best solution was to hire a driver to take me between railheads. It also afforded me a chance to get a local perspective in the trip.
> 
> And Europe is tiny compared to the US.  It's just not cost effective to provide passenger rail to all the places that folks might want to go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ya, but they have real beds and those kinds of big compartments like you would see in old movies. Plus, like you said, you can find "buses" which are often just vans, even mini-vans to haul you from station to station.
Click to expand...


Amtrak does offer larger sleeper compartments...you had the "roomette", same thing my wife and I used on the Auto Train. Very small (we'll get a bedroom, if we do it again), but adequate...and...well, I kind of enjoyed sharing a twin bed with my wife.


----------



## danielpalos

DGS49 said:


> I recently completed a two-overnite trip on Amtrak from Pittsburgh to Denver.
> 
> I had only once traveled on Amtrak, in a transportation emergency, and it was kind of OK, but I'd never overnited, and frankly I pushed my wife into it because I wanted to see what the experience was like.  Certainly it's no cheaper than Air, but let's see.
> 
> First night we were leaving Pittsburgh at midnight, so I thought I'd chance it and just get regular seating.  It would theoretically be more comfortable than airplane seating, so possibly OK to sleep overnight.  The seats were not particularly comfortable, there was noise all over the place, the ride was worse than I've experienced in either sea travel or air, and I was somewhat surprised to learn that throughout the night, every time the train went over a road crossing, the Engineer blows the horn repeatedly.  All.  Night.  Long.
> 
> In short, it was a terrible night.  Got essentially no sleep at all.
> 
> So we switched to a Cabin-ette for the second night.  It is a microscopic affair with an upper and lower bunk, and no room whatsoever to do anything once it is set up for sleeping.  The cabin attendant was very courteous and competent, but he couldn't make a bad situation good.  Same noises, same rocking and rolling, and a little bit more comfortable "bed."  Slept a few hours, but laid awake for most of the night.
> 
> Amtrak has not mastered the advance science of loudspeakers.  Announcements were near-impossible to hear, largely contradictory, and seldom offered any valuable information.  On night number 2, we rode through a severe thunderstorm that felled a tree on the tracks in front of us.  Well, not much you can do about that.  Amtrak leases the track from Burlington Northern, and we had to wait for them to send a crew to clear the track and inspect for damage.  But as a result of the delay, we had to ALSO wait for another crew because the existing crew had run out of time.  throughout this EIGHT-HOUR DELAY, there was not a single P.A. announcement telling us what the fuck was going on or how long the problem was likely to last.  Our official notice of when we would arrive in Denver came when...we arrived in Denver.
> 
> As bad as air travel has become, it is still miles ahead of rail, at least when Amtrak is the mode being compared.  I would consider Amtrak for a daytrip on occasion, and in fact they gave us a coupon for $200 to compensate for our MISSING OUR BUS TOUR IN DENVER, and we may use that for a day-trip to Philadelphia later this year.  But over night?  Not on your life.
> 
> One can only wonder how it would be if Amtrak were replaced by some number of regional, privately-owned rail carriers.  No doubt they would still be sucking the hind teat with respect to freight traffic, so they would have some considerable obstacles to overcome, but I can't believe it would be this bad.
> 
> With the possible exception of Social Security, I can't think of anything that government does well.


in my opinion, public transportation should be used to upgrade infrastructure when possible.  one hundred mile per hour tracks and sound proofing, may be more market friendly.


----------



## fncceo

danielpalos said:


> in my opinion, public transportation should be used to upgrade infrastructure when possible.  one hundred mile per hour tracks and sound proofing, may be more market friendly.



No one wants to ride the train for hours / days at a time.  Period ... 

Hello, Planes... this is Trains.  Just calling to let you know you won.


----------



## danielpalos

fncceo said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> in my opinion, public transportation should be used to upgrade infrastructure when possible.  one hundred mile per hour tracks and sound proofing, may be more market friendly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one wants to ride the train for hours / days at a time.  Period ...
> 
> Hello, Planes... this is Trains.  Just calling to let you know you won.
Click to expand...

depends; more market friendly services could have mini-suites for business professionals.  there is room to walk around on a train.  upgrading trains to include sound proofing and sound systems could make it a more convenient experience.


----------



## fncceo

danielpalos said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> in my opinion, public transportation should be used to upgrade infrastructure when possible.  one hundred mile per hour tracks and sound proofing, may be more market friendly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one wants to ride the train for hours / days at a time.  Period ...
> 
> Hello, Planes... this is Trains.  Just calling to let you know you won.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> depends; more market friendly services could have mini-suites for business professionals.  there is room to walk around on a train.  upgrading trains to include sound proofing and sound systems could make it a more convenient experience.
Click to expand...


The definition of convenient is to get their fast.  Which is why we jet across the country and don't take the Hindenburg 2.0.


----------



## danielpalos

fncceo said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> in my opinion, public transportation should be used to upgrade infrastructure when possible.  one hundred mile per hour tracks and sound proofing, may be more market friendly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one wants to ride the train for hours / days at a time.  Period ...
> 
> Hello, Planes... this is Trains.  Just calling to let you know you won.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> depends; more market friendly services could have mini-suites for business professionals.  there is room to walk around on a train.  upgrading trains to include sound proofing and sound systems could make it a more convenient experience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The definition of convenient is to get their fast.  Which is why we jet across the country and don't take the Hindenburg 2.0.
Click to expand...

being able to have a business meeting with presentations could be more convenient.


----------



## danielpalos

a "theater car" may be interesting.


----------



## fncceo

danielpalos said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> in my opinion, public transportation should be used to upgrade infrastructure when possible.  one hundred mile per hour tracks and sound proofing, may be more market friendly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one wants to ride the train for hours / days at a time.  Period ...
> 
> Hello, Planes... this is Trains.  Just calling to let you know you won.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> depends; more market friendly services could have mini-suites for business professionals.  there is room to walk around on a train.  upgrading trains to include sound proofing and sound systems could make it a more convenient experience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The definition of convenient is to get their fast.  Which is why we jet across the country and don't take the Hindenburg 2.0.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> being able to have a business meeting with presentations could be more convenient.
Click to expand...


Well, A) you travel to the meeting.  You don't do the meeting on the trip.  It makes no sense to have a meeting on a train, a plane, a blimp, or a paddle wheel steamer.  If everyone was _already _in one place, we wouldn't have to travel.

And B) Welcome to the future ... we don't even have to travel.


----------



## danielpalos

fncceo said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> in my opinion, public transportation should be used to upgrade infrastructure when possible.  one hundred mile per hour tracks and sound proofing, may be more market friendly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one wants to ride the train for hours / days at a time.  Period ...
> 
> Hello, Planes... this is Trains.  Just calling to let you know you won.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> depends; more market friendly services could have mini-suites for business professionals.  there is room to walk around on a train.  upgrading trains to include sound proofing and sound systems could make it a more convenient experience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The definition of convenient is to get their fast.  Which is why we jet across the country and don't take the Hindenburg 2.0.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> being able to have a business meeting with presentations could be more convenient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, A) you travel to the meeting.  You don't do the meeting on the trip.  It makes no sense to have a meeting on a train, a plane, a blimp, or a paddle wheel steamer.  If everyone was _already _in one place, we wouldn't have to travel.
> 
> And B) Welcome to the future ... we don't even have to travel.
Click to expand...

depends on the circumstances.  it may be convenient; or it could be a creative group; a few days enjoying the scenery may be helpful.

having everyone on board may be helpful in cases of more complicated strategy.


----------



## fncceo

danielpalos said:


> having everyone on board may be helpful in cases of more complicated strategy



Having spent my entire professional career in pointless meetings.  There is only one place where getting everyone together to go over a complicated strategy makes sense.


----------



## danielpalos

fncceo said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> having everyone on board may be helpful in cases of more complicated strategy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having spent my entire professional career in pointless meetings.  There is only one place where getting everyone together to go over a complicated strategy makes sense.
Click to expand...

nobody goes on working vacations on a cruise liner?


----------



## fncceo

danielpalos said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> having everyone on board may be helpful in cases of more complicated strategy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having spent my entire professional career in pointless meetings.  There is only one place where getting everyone together to go over a complicated strategy makes sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nobody goes on working vacations on a cruise liner?
Click to expand...


I'm sure they do ... but everyone takes a plane to get to the cruise ship.  Trains, planes, buses, taxis, and donkey carts are point to point transportation. No one has used a cruise ship to get anywhere since the War. 

Cruise ships might make an interesting team build location, but mostly they're for overeating, getting trichinosis, and having unsafe sex with recent divorcees.


----------



## danielpalos

fncceo said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> having everyone on board may be helpful in cases of more complicated strategy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having spent my entire professional career in pointless meetings.  There is only one place where getting everyone together to go over a complicated strategy makes sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nobody goes on working vacations on a cruise liner?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure they do ... but everyone takes a plane to get to the cruise ship.  Trains, planes, buses, taxis, and donkey carts are point to point transportation. No one has used a cruise ship to get anywhere since the War.
> 
> Cruise ships might make an interesting team build location, but mostly they're for overeating, getting trichinosis, and having unsafe sex with recent divorcees.
Click to expand...

all i am saying is there is some market demand for such services.  

upgrading our railroads to maglev, would be helpful.


----------



## fncceo

danielpalos said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> having everyone on board may be helpful in cases of more complicated strategy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having spent my entire professional career in pointless meetings.  There is only one place where getting everyone together to go over a complicated strategy makes sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nobody goes on working vacations on a cruise liner?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure they do ... but everyone takes a plane to get to the cruise ship.  Trains, planes, buses, taxis, and donkey carts are point to point transportation. No one has used a cruise ship to get anywhere since the War.
> 
> Cruise ships might make an interesting team build location, but mostly they're for overeating, getting trichinosis, and having unsafe sex with recent divorcees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all i am saying is there is some market demand for such services.
> 
> upgrading our railroads to maglev, would be helpful.
Click to expand...


China is now running their maglev trains at the speed of normal trains because of the costs of running at high speed.

Doubling the speed quadruples the electricity use.


----------



## danielpalos

fncceo said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> having everyone on board may be helpful in cases of more complicated strategy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having spent my entire professional career in pointless meetings.  There is only one place where getting everyone together to go over a complicated strategy makes sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nobody goes on working vacations on a cruise liner?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure they do ... but everyone takes a plane to get to the cruise ship.  Trains, planes, buses, taxis, and donkey carts are point to point transportation. No one has used a cruise ship to get anywhere since the War.
> 
> Cruise ships might make an interesting team build location, but mostly they're for overeating, getting trichinosis, and having unsafe sex with recent divorcees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all i am saying is there is some market demand for such services.
> 
> upgrading our railroads to maglev, would be helpful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> China is now running their maglev trains at the speed of normal trains because of the costs of running at high speed.
> 
> Doubling the speed quadruples the electricity use.
Click to expand...

Let's convince Mr. Musk to pioneer supercapacitor technology so we can capture energy from lighting as well, not just solar and wind.


----------



## rightwinger

I have taken the Acela on many occasions on the Boston to Washington corridor 

Much of it is hurry up and wait. You will go 130 mph on some stretches and then slow down to 45 mph due to congestion. 

It is more comfortable than flying and easy to get on and off. The internet sucks big time. The food is OK but you are better off to bring your own. Drinks were reasonably priced


----------



## danielpalos

rightwinger said:


> I have taken the Acela on many occasions on the Boston to Washington corridor
> 
> Much of it is hurry up and wait. You will go 130 mph on some stretches and then slow down to 45 mph due to congestion.
> 
> It is more comfortable than flying and easy to get on and off. The internet sucks big time. The food is OK but you are better off to bring your own. Drinks were reasonably priced


would attend a movie car if they had one and a recent release was playing?


----------



## fncceo

danielpalos said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having spent my entire professional career in pointless meetings.  There is only one place where getting everyone together to go over a complicated strategy makes sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nobody goes on working vacations on a cruise liner?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure they do ... but everyone takes a plane to get to the cruise ship.  Trains, planes, buses, taxis, and donkey carts are point to point transportation. No one has used a cruise ship to get anywhere since the War.
> 
> Cruise ships might make an interesting team build location, but mostly they're for overeating, getting trichinosis, and having unsafe sex with recent divorcees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all i am saying is there is some market demand for such services.
> 
> upgrading our railroads to maglev, would be helpful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> China is now running their maglev trains at the speed of normal trains because of the costs of running at high speed.
> 
> Doubling the speed quadruples the electricity use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's convince Mr. Musk to pioneer supercapacitor technology so we can capture energy from lighting as well, not just solar and wind.
Click to expand...


Musk is out of that business for a while.


----------



## danielpalos

fncceo said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> nobody goes on working vacations on a cruise liner?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure they do ... but everyone takes a plane to get to the cruise ship.  Trains, planes, buses, taxis, and donkey carts are point to point transportation. No one has used a cruise ship to get anywhere since the War.
> 
> Cruise ships might make an interesting team build location, but mostly they're for overeating, getting trichinosis, and having unsafe sex with recent divorcees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all i am saying is there is some market demand for such services.
> 
> upgrading our railroads to maglev, would be helpful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> China is now running their maglev trains at the speed of normal trains because of the costs of running at high speed.
> 
> Doubling the speed quadruples the electricity use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's convince Mr. Musk to pioneer supercapacitor technology so we can capture energy from lighting as well, not just solar and wind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Musk is out of that business for a while.
Click to expand...

only the car business; it could be a new venture that complements his battery venture.


----------



## DGS49

(1) There are occasions when getting There fast is not so important.  I am retired, as is - seemingly - about half the country.  An extra day or two on the road means nothing to me, and if the scenery is good, so much the better.

(2) If the train was an enjoyable experience - and it has that potential - it would be much more popular, I assure you.  But its reputation as a third-world experience in the U.S. is well-deserved.  (My experience with the MegaBus was actually better than the train, although it also has its irritations).

(3)  No need for a movie car.  There is plenty of room and train infrastructure to put screens on the back of every seat, along with earphone jacks.

(4) This is not rocket science.  There are plenty of companies around (e.g., Bombardier)  that can make fabulous railcars, with no need to advance the state of the art.

If passenger rail was run by private, profit-making entities, I guar-on-tee the service and the rolling stock would be much, much better.

I didn't mention this above, but we ended up having to tote our bags about half a mile in both Chicago and Denver, just to get back to the terminal.  Seems like something could be done about this, although I'm not sure what.


----------



## rightwinger

The Trans Canada rail trip is supposed to be spectacular


----------

