...and air travel will get hurt quite badly all else being equal, the cost will be time, it will just take longer to get somewhere, no biggie, man lived w/o air travel before, we can deal with it

A few years ago, one of the aviation magazines ran an article that seemed prescient. The writer said that as fuel becomes more dear, lighter-than-air travel will come back into use. First class travel in conventional aircraft will be fast and very expensive. Cheap travel in modern blimp-type craft will be slower. My time is not so expensive that I couldn't board a flight in the afternoon to arrive across the continent or across the ocean the next morning. I'd expect a good deal more room than the typical present-day coach compartment offers.

Huh? The trains pulling out El Centro look to be 2 miles long. Each train car as large as or bigger than the boxes on the back of mack trucks. The car-carriers carry multiple cars (can't count them anymore since they're now screened in). If you eat meat, vegetables, or drive a car west of the Mississippi its likely it made the major leg of its journey by rail. If you own any merchandise from Asia, it almost certainly made at least one leg and possibly two by rail. Maybe you mean something else by large scale commerce?

Actually by commerce I wasn't thinking of freight. I was thinking of the people traveling on business who make up the majority of airline revenues.

No way can I believe that air travel is more efficient for transport than rail. If it was so efficient, why have so many airlines gone into bankruptcy and the ones that are remaining are always on a knife's edge?

Of course air travel is efficient. You have hundreds ofpeople and their luggage packed tightly together, flying where the atmosphere is so thin that air drag is negligible.

Regarding bus versus rail, it may be that city busses are better run in MI than here. Here their service is atrocious, unreliable, and uncomfortable. No wonder that only 3% of the local population makes use of mass transit. But we also have light rail (trolleys) that is slowly making a come-back. The trolleys run on schedule, are reasonably comfortable, and don't get stuck in traffic. Best of all, you don't have to deal with bus drivers.

First of all, I said I was talking about interurban busses, and they ain't all that great either. But Amtrack's service is abysmal, it's hard to imagine anything much worse.

Where is that report from the UOCS? Comparing busses vs. trains as they currently exist isn't a fair match up in any event because the bussess are running in an artifically subsidized environment in which a part of the true cost of transport is being footed by the government. For all the talk about the "free market", there sure is a lot of resistance to making interstates into tollways that pay for their own usage.

I don't get it. I really doubt if interurban busses like greyhound are more heavily subsidized than Amtrack. In the US and most countries all forms of transportation are subsidized because governments believe that good transportation is essential to the nation's welfare.

The data comparing environmental impacts of various forms of transportation was in The Consumer's Guide to Effective Environmental Choices: Practical Advice from the Union of Concerned Scientists by Michael Brower & Warren Leon. (Amazon has it for sale (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/060980281X/sr=8-1/qid=1152220584/ref=sr_1_1/103-4950032-6060637?ie=UTF8) or you can get it at the library.)

My recent dealings with busses and trains....
Trying to scedule trip to Sc.....
Greyhound to SC from VT. Lots of $$, 4 teminal
changes and make it an almost 40 hour one trip
as per thier web site-trip planner.
2o hours by car with rest stops, 4 by plane. Im going plane
on a 99.00 buddy pass.
Getting offspring home for vacation....
Amtrak....Phila Pa. to Vt. 6.5 by car, 8 by Amtrak train.
97.00 dollars one way. ......243.00 two way :eek:
A call to ask why so much more than double a one-way yielded a
almost 10 minute wait to get condescended upon by a very angry
'customer service' rep telling me the prices are determined by demand. Huh ??
The 4 people that ride the Vt train out of here are that demand ??
We did use Amtrak but I can understand why more people dont.

I love trains too. So relaxing when used to look out on I 5 at the stopped traffic. Can't understand the war on trains. Sure some special interest like bus/plane lobby is paying off politicans to destroy a service Americans will soon regret loosing.
As for now, we live in Europe and love the trains. They are packed. Took the train to Paris for New Years. TGV took five hours for a 700 mile trip. Loved it. Why go through hassle of airport security when you can be having a Heineken at the bar and forgo the airline safety video.
And I fear American apathy will allow the nations' politicians to eliminate another national necesity.
and lem about the amtrak pricing structure. Passengers of all stripes are told don't ask your neighbor how much they paid for a travel fare. Worst offender are the airlines. You could easily find you fellow flyer paid 1/4 what you paid. And when you find out , airline beers(BUdweisers are now $5. )

We did use Amtrak but I can understand why more people dont.


It's kinda unfair comparing american passenger rail(we all know they suck ass) to plane. A better comparison would be european passnger rail to air travel.

It's kinda unfair comparing american passenger rail(we all know they suck ass) to plane. A better comparison would be european passnger rail to air travel.

Why is it unfair? Amtrak is the reality of what we have.

It's kinda unfair comparing american passenger rail(we all know they suck ass) to plane. A better comparison would be european passnger rail to air travel.

rail service is way better there, but discount airfares are much cheaper than rail tickets - much cheaper than our discount airfares, too.

I love taking the train from Toronto to Montreal. The train takes 5 hours. The plane only takes an hour, but in fact it wastes more time and is much more stressful. You have to get to the airport, wait for your flight, board, squeeze past your neighbour, take off, wait for the seat belt sign to go off, get your free soda, almost immediately return your tray and seat-back to the upright position, land, deplane, drag your luggage through the airport, find a cab or a bus, and ride downtown. It's so fragmented you never actually get to chill out, do much reading or sleeping, or boot up your laptop, or whatever. By the time you get to the hotel you are on edge and wired.

For the train, Toronto's Union station is right downtown, and so is the Montreal station, presumably very close to your hotel. There are also a couple of Toronto suburban stations en route if you don't live close to downtown. A first class ticket is probably about the same as regular airfare (or less) and you get a roomy seat, proper meal, alcohol if you want it, great view, wireless internet access, and a chance to sleep, work, read, talk or sight see, uninterrupted for 4 or 5 hours. Then you can walk to your hotel and roll into bed completely relaxed. There are several trains a day, even on weekends, because it's a busy corridor between Canada's two largest cities.

Right, Cooker. On my way to Toronto last year, I treated myself to a night at Montreal's Queen Elizabeth Hotel. I checked out of the hotel twenty minutes before my train's scheduled departure and boarded the train, waiting for me as if in the hotel basement, with plenty of time to spare. I had already checked my luggage aboard the night before and carried only the stuff I needed until I got to Toronto.

I only wish they pulled a bar or club car on my train. To have the the trolly dolly (actually it was the coach attendant but she was a doll) push a food and beverage cart down the aisle while I stay put in my seat is too much like the airline experience, except I felt compelled to tip. Is that the service on all those trains or do some of them have club cars?

The equipment was in good repair, the track was well maintained, the crew were polite, we ran on schedule until just outside Toronto, where we arrived during the afternoon rush and had to back into the station. The fare was a good value.

Now that you know what I really think, I can post the message about VIA's innovative Black & Blue service.

VIA RAIL CANADA'S new "Black & Blue" Service:


In a cost cutting manoeuvre, the railroad announced the inauguration of its new "Black and Blue" service, informally known as "Cardboard Class." Under this new programme, passengers will be able to view the scenic beauty of the Canadian Rockies from the comfort and convenience of a cardboard cut-out of the original Budd-built stainless steel passenger cars that first entered service in 1955. The cardboard cutouts will be transported on the back of flatbed trucks travelling along the Trans-Canada Highway.


"Since our stainless steel fleet has been in continuous service for over fifty years, we figured we would actually be improving our product line by converting to the cardboard cutouts and truck transport. Let's face it, the scenery looks just as good whether you're looking at it from a genuine train or from a cardboard facsimile." said Dudley Doo Wright, Manager of VIA Service Curtailments. "By travelling the Trans Canada Highway, we will once again be able to serve the resort towns of Banff and Lake Louise on a schedule that will actually be faster than rail. With this new service, our passenger "trains" will no longer be subjected to endless delays caused by the many freight trains on Canadian National and Canadian Pacific tracks. CN and CP are very enthusiastic about this new conversion, as it opens up much needed capacity on their already over-crowded freight corridors.& nbsp; We are more than happy to assist our freight railroad partners so that Canada can remain competitive in the global marketplace. We're confident our passengers will feel the same way, even though there may be some cases of frostbite in the winter months." said Doo Wright.


"Right now, we're having an informal contest with Amtrak to see which carrier can downgrade their services to the fullest with the least amount of negative impact on our valued customers." said Doo Wright. "Our joint motto is 'How low can you go?' "



An unidentified Amtrak spokesperson confirmed that the carrier recently downgraded their dining car service. "Fortunately, a new batch of riders, who never experienced the "good ol' days" of meals cooked on board trains, thinks our glorified TV dinners are the greatest thing since sliced bread. Boy, did we luck out!"


Here's a photograph of VIA RAIL CANADA'S new "Black & Blue" Service: (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v679/Dave_Des/Trains_II/Park_Car.jpg)



_http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v679/Dave_Des/Trains_II/Park_Car.jpg_

Of course air travel is efficient. You have hundreds ofpeople and their luggage packed tightly together, flying where the atmosphere is so thin that air drag is negligible.
Hmmm. But first they have to get to something like 30,000 feet, consuming an awful lot of energy. It may be cost-effective -- in the sense that people are willing to pay a premium to be treated to kennel-like conditions -- but that's not the same as efficient.

If it was truly efficient, we would be using planes to transport cars instead of sending them by boat and rail.

I don't know where dirigibles stand in the efficiency, but I do think it would be cool if they made a comeback :)

First of all, I said I was talking about interurban busses, and they ain't all that great either. But Amtrack's service is abysmal, it's hard to imagine anything much worse.I'm not sure what you mean here. By interurban, do you mean intra-city? I was thinking that interurban would be between urban areas -- i.e. cities. But maybe you're describing something else.

I don't get it. I really doubt if interurban busses like greyhound are more heavily subsidized than Amtrack.
Look at the pie graph again. The subsidies for Amtrak are just a small sliver of the subsidies for everything else. Anything that rolls on highways is currently being heavily subsidized by the government. What's worse, the current system does nothing to convince SUV drivers to pack up and take a bus. Only if we re-instate tolls will we be comparing systems where people pay something close to the real cost.

The data comparing environmental impacts of various forms of transportation was in The Consumer's Guide to Effective Environmental Choices: Practical Advice from the Union of Concerned Scientists by Michael Brower & Warren Leon.
Thanks for the info. I biked out to the library and picked up a copy ...

Of course air travel is efficient. You have hundreds ofpeople and their luggage packed tightly together, flying where the atmosphere is so thin that air drag is negligible.
Hmmm. But first they have to get to something like 30,000 feet, consuming an awful lot of energy. It may be cost-effective -- in the sense that people are willing to pay a premium to be treated to kennel-like conditions -- but that's not the same as efficient.

If it was truly efficient, we would be using planes to transport cars instead of sending them by boat and rail.

I don't know where dirigibles stand in the efficiency, but I do think it would be cool if they made a comeback :)

First of all, I said I was talking about interurban busses, and they ain't all that great either. But Amtrack's service is abysmal, it's hard to imagine anything much worse.I'm not sure what you mean here. By interurban, do you mean intra-city? I was thinking that interurban would be between urban areas -- i.e. cities. But maybe you're describing something else.

I don't get it. I really doubt if interurban busses like greyhound are more heavily subsidized than Amtrack.
Look at the pie graph again. The subsidies for Amtrak are just a small sliver of the subsidies for everything else. Anything that rolls on highways is currently being heavily subsidized by the government. What's worse, the current system does nothing to convince SUV drivers to pack up and take a bus. Only if we re-instate tolls will we be comparing systems where people pay something close to the real cost.

The data comparing environmental impacts of various forms of transportation was in The Consumer's Guide to Effective Environmental Choices: Practical Advice from the Union of Concerned Scientists by Michael Brower & Warren Leon.
Thanks for the info. I biked out to the library and picked up a copy ...

Bro Max. I would be curious why the US ignores its' passenger railroads yet, Canada finds them popular.Probably our governments. I think the argument that Americans ignore trains to be bunk. I traveled up to Oregon last Summer. The train both ways was totally packed. Even the sleepers.
I have experienced this previous summers . You better order your tickets way in advance for Amtrak.
With the trains so packed; I refuse to believe the pollutants from that train equivillant to all those people driving there own auto.

Bro Max. I would be curious why the US ignores its' passenger railroads yet, Canada finds them popular.

It's only good in very select areas of Canada. Most of the Canadian population lives along the southern fringe of the country and there are only two main cross country rail lines, that tend to hug the US border. In heavily-populated southern Ontario and Quebec, rail service is fairly busy, especially along the Windsor(Detroit)-Toronto-Montreal corridor, and in the greater Toronto suburban area. However the trans-national service has declined steadily, to only 3 passenger trains/week service in each direction, and most of the peripheral lines have vanished. When I took a segment of the national rail last summer between Winnipeg and Sioux Lookout, the train was much less than half full and 6 hours late.

I once took the Windsor- Quebec City line over easter recess. As we watched the freezing drizzle fall over the McCartier Freeway, we loved being in the train having a coffee and armanac.

Bro Max. I would be curious why the US ignores its' passenger railroads yet, Canada finds them popular.Probably our governments. I think the argument that Americans ignore trains to be bunk. I traveled up to Oregon last Summer. The train both ways was totally packed. Even the sleepers.
I have experienced this previous summers . You better order your tickets way in advance for Amtrak.
With the trains so packed; I refuse to believe the pollutants from that train equivillant to all those people driving there own auto.
If I gave the impression that my opinion is that Americans ignore trains maybe I expressed myself in terms that were too general. Our government treats Amtrak like the stepchild of American transit. Amtrak sought a very modest budget. The Executive cut it to starvation level; then the Legislature restored just enough of the request to keep it at subsistence--as long as the seventy year old catenary that electrifies the Northeast Corridor doesn't start dropping like...well, like seventy year old catenary. To my regret, it seems that most of the rail-travelling public won't start to protest this erosion of passenger service to their representative in Congress until the trains are gone.

I travel between the three state Capitals on the Coast Starlight line and between Salem and Seattle on the Talgo a few times per year. I much prefer the whole Amtrak culture to the airline experience. At Salem, I can be off the train, across a twelve foot platform and into a car in less than one minute. Boarding is almost as easy. At Portland I can use free rapid transit from the station to get most places I need to go and could probably do so in Seattle if I were to learn how their system works. (I wish Amtrak would put a stop at the Mukilteo ferry. It seems such a waste passing a few yards from it on the train only to go on to Everett where I need a $30 cab fare to get back there.)

Why do trains work better in Canada and Europe? Part of the reason is geographical. In Canada, because of it's one rail corridor passes within 50 miles of 80 % of the population. In Europe, many huge cities--national capitals--are located within only a few hundred miles of each other.

In the US, cities are not close to each other, like European cities, and not situated in a narrow corridor, like Canadian cities. The only exceptions are the east coast, and, to a lesser extent, the New York-Cleveland-Detroit-Chicago corridor.

We should dump AMTRAK, and let private buisness take over rail travel, with subsidies, similar to the airlines run. Now we all know airlines are in trouble, well that is because of bad buisness models, i.e. travel to to many low volume cities, expensive hub systems, unions, so forth. Private buisness operated train lines would only run to profitable areas, and would have money then to upgrade to faster, better systems. Bottom line the current socialist style train system doesn't work.

n/a

But we also have light rail (trolleys) that is slowly making a come-back. The trolleys run on schedule, are reasonably comfortable, and don't get stuck in traffic. Best of all, you don't have to deal with bus drivers.


Light rail is making a come-back because as many cities have discovered, once you set up a billion dollar system, business and investment come in droves and start developing luxury housing, malls and offices around the system. Homes next to a lightrail station jump 20% in value over the next two to three years. Lightrail is the only form of passenger rail that states are seriously looking into to revive downtowns that decayed over the past 50 years.

I don't get it. I really doubt if interurban busses like greyhound are more heavily subsidized than Amtrack. In the US and most countries all forms of transportation are subsidized because governments believe that good transportation is essential to the nation's welfare.


Practically all bus lines are subsidized by state and local tax payers. My town must pay NJ transit and Coach USA to run buses down the main street. Othewise, those public and private companies would discontinue their service. It is not only my town doing this, but every town in the state that has a bus line must subsidize the carrier. The total amount cities and states pay to subsidize their local buses must be in the billions of dollars.

We should dump AMTRAK, and let private buisness take over rail travel, with subsidies, similar to the airlines run. Now we all know airlines are in trouble, well that is because of bad buisness models, i.e. travel to to many low volume cities, expensive hub systems, unions, so forth. Private buisness operated train lines would only run to profitable areas, and would have money then to upgrade to faster, better systems. Bottom line the current socialist style train system doesn't work.

Private companies operated most long distance passenger rail trains until 1971, when the railroads negotiated with the Interstate Commerce Commission to divest themselves of all passenger trains and facilities (only a few railroads, such as Southern and Denver & Rio Grande Western did not participate). The huge bankruptcy (the largest in history up to then and for decades afterwards) of the Penn Central (a private company formed by an ill-fated merger of the NY Central and the Pennsylvania) in 1967 helped bring Amtrak into being.

The airlines are encouraged to keep their "bad business models" by taxpayer subsidies that encourage them to continue serving small cities. I wonder if Amtrak receives even a fraction of the subsidies that the presumably private airlines receive from the taxpayers. What is outrageous about this is that while most airline executives are negotiating lower pay and benefit packages for their employees, they are being paid salaries that are unjustified by their performance. If it were only the shareholders' money they were taking, the shareholders might be more interested in intervening for their own good.

Privatizing of railroads might work if there were some parity with other forms of transit. For example, private trucking companies operate on public rights-of-way, whereas most passenger trains operate over private rights of way. To achieve parity, we could either sell off the public highways to the highest bidders and let all motor traffic pay those companies for use of the roads or have the public take possession of the railroad lines (as they now have possession of the highways) and allow private companies to operate passenger trains on them.

It's not a problem that has a simple solution if all the complexities are taken into account. One thing I am certain of is that we need a Congress and a Department of Transportation that can view the whole picture without undue influence from Detroit. Another thing I am certain of is that if we do not reverse our long history of neglect of passenger rail transport, we will regret it as the price of fuel and land continues to rise.

19 July 2006 - Guardian Unlimited


By: Oliver King and agencies
The Conservatives today admitted that the privatisation of the railways
under John Major in the 1990s was a mistake that inflicted costs on both
passengers and the taxpayer as well as hindering expansion.
Launching a Conservative Rail Review today the shadow transport secretary
Chris Grayling said that privatisation pushed up the cost of running the
railway system - and hence fares - and the party would not seek to reprivatise the
system if it returns to power....

I'm sorry train lovers. Trains are romantic, but interurban busses are much more practical in the US. Busses are more efficient, faster*, safer, cheaper, and pollute MUCH less Even more important, the infrastructure they need is already in place.

With the current heat wave, UK trains are limited to 95mph due to rail warping. (That's mph, not km/h.)

Ever ridden a modern train? You look out the window at the highway you pass, and the highway traffic moving along at 110-130km/h looks like it's practically standing still. It's spacious, comfortable, there are electrical outlets for your laptop or whatever, wireless access, it's quiet, and there's a cafeteria car if you want to stretch your legs. And the passengers are a complete mix reflecting society, not just the bum element who can't afford anything else.

Some things are just worth paying for. The least the various tiers of our government could do is give us a pair of checkboxes to decide for ourselves whether our taxes should go to freeways or rail upgrades.