The state of Amtrak is frustrating to me. My girlfriend and I are currently long distance and she relies on the San Joaquin train to come visit me. Every trip her train has to stop to let freight trains pass by and it is late probably 75% of the time. This is why I drive instead. I can't afford to have a 4 hour trip turn into a 7 hour trip. Plus, the latest train only goes half way and then I would have to transfer to a bus. The problem is, I don't really want to drive, I would much rather take the train even if it means having to pay more than the cost of driving. I have made the trip by train a few times and, despite the delays, it is largely an enjoyable experience. I have wifi and a power outlet that let me get work done or I can relax and not have to focus on the road and traffic. The cabins are spacious and comfortable enough. I would love to take a month and just explore the country by train. Unfortunately, I don't think Amtrak could really support that reality how I imagine it. That's just how it effects me, I think the article hits a good point on the importance of connectedness and investing in what we already have. I wish Amtrak wasn't seen as a joke and cursed to be one.
Hey reef, I have travelled by Amtrak some pretty far distances a number of times. A while back I made some suggestions on how best to prepare for such a trip: Montana to Michigan - How to Travel 36 Hours on a Train
Interesting! Around the holidays I often wish I could take a train to Chicago or Florida to visit family but coming from California, it is just too far, too long, and too expensive when compared to flying. Maybe I'll plan a trip to Portland to visit a friend, but that doesn't allow for getting sidetracked and having adventures along the way when driving which is fun when you aren't traveling alone. Plus it's an extra 8 hours by train and seems to be about the same price as a plane ticket. I suppose it would be an interesting experience though.
Plus it's an extra 8 hours by train and seems to be about the same price as a plane ticket. I suppose it would be an interesting experience though.
-It certainly can be an interesting experience. It's much less hurried and if you are lucky, you'll meet some great people. Even if you don't though, holding up in the observation care with a book, your journal and a pencil is pretty kick-ass.
I recently tried to take the Amtrack from Austin to Dallas, departing at 9:31am. At 9:29am, in the waiting area, I received an automated phone call telling me that my train would be late. I asked the young man at the ticket booth how long the delay would be and he said that our train would be pulling into the station at noon at the earliest. How do trains get delayed over 2.5 hours? It doesn't make sense to me, there's no traffic on the tracks. I was really excited to ride the train, but I ended up catching a ride with a friend who happened to be heading north that morning so I wouldn't be late. Hopefully I'll get a chance to ride in the future, but I'm not going to count on it being on time.
There is some traffic on tracks, actually. Acela trains have priority over all other trains and therefore if an Acela and a different train, like a regular Amtrak, are both approaching, the Amtrak will have to slow down on the rails and stop until the Acela pulls in, releases & loads passengers, etc. I don't know if that excuses a full 2.5 hour long wait, and the fact that Amtrak is notoriously unreliable and often late makes me very angry, but I know this is one factor for why trains are delayed. I have had to ride on trains quite a lot. I have seen them delayed to pull into stations quite frequently. I have also been on a train or two that had to stop on the rails and restart the engine because they were having technical issues. I suspect these are among the most common "delay factors" that we experience. Weather and car crashes, debris on the rails, etc, can all slow trains down. However I too struggle with the idea that these factors could conceivably delay a train for so long. I find Amtrak very frustrating, and I agree - I never count on the train being on time.
You would think that the routes would be scheduled so as to minimize these kinds of traffic delays to a matter of minutes. Amtrack doesn't share it's track with anyone else, does it? Technical issues are more understandable for long delays, but seem like they should be much less frequent. Do you usually ride Amtrack, or is there another railway you use?
Outlander - I suppose that we both should have read the whole article before speaking .Amtrak does not own its tracks: Outside of the Northeast Corridor, the tracks Amtrak uses are almost all owned by freight railroads. CSX, Union Pacific, and a handful of other behemoths naturally hog them, which contributes to Amtrak's chronic tardiness,
Sure, you would certainly think so. Of course, neither of us are railroad executives (I assume), so while we may think that in an ideal world things would be done a certain way, (and while we might wisely agree and nod our heads and stroke our proverbial beards while doing so,) that doesn't have much bearing on what occurs in reality, which unfortunately neither of us have much insight into, at least from where I sit. The fact is that Amtrak trains do run late, Amtrak knows that, and apparently either can't or doesn't do much to fix it. I think the fact that they run on a deficit and depend on the government just to keep existing is probably a factor. Maybe Amtrak cannot afford certain upgrades that would allow them to run better. I don't know if Amtrak shares its tracks or not. I kind of think that they might share their tracks with the local mass transit (Septa around here), but as I only and always ride Amtrak, I wouldn't be able to speak to that personally. I think I have been on Septa once in recent memory. I don't know if there are any other options around here besides Amtrak and the local rail, which is Septa, and which doesn't go far enough to take me where I want to go, so yes, it's always Amtrak. I was on the Acela once or twice, usually I am on the regular trains.