Took Amtrak from LA to San Jose last week, which was a good experience. The train runs along the coast for a good stretch, from Ventura through Vandenberg and then through the hills. It's certainly not the fastest way to go (~10 hours) but you can leave in the morning, have a couple of sit down meals on the way, watch the world go by, work if necessary, and be in San Jose in the evening. Probably not something to do regularly, but a great occasional change from flying.
Since Amtrak is often delayed due to freight having priority, traveling the other way is more risky from a scheduling point of view, since the train starts in Seattle and could already be heavily delayed by the time it gets to San Jose.
It's not an enforcement issue so much as it is a heavily exploited loophole. Part of the reason freight trains are so long is so that they can't fit in passing sidings. Since Amtrak does fit, they end up having to yield because the freight trains simply cannot.
Could this be fixed by legislation on max train length to ensure all trains fit in sidings? Yes. Will that legislation get passed? No.
The problem is, overtaking is one thing when you got two parallel rails and ample point switches.
But when you don't have them or only every 100km or whatnot, or any of the potential places (such as in a train station) just isn't long enough to accept and buffer a 3 miles long train... then good luck, there just is no physical opportunity for the faster passenger train to speed ahead, not to mention the absurd amount of energy wasted in braking and then re-accelerating that 3 mile freight monster.
Fixing this would be possible - either by limiting the maximum length of a train or by forcing the extension of parallel rail segments. The former makes logistics significantly more challenging plus it requires more staff (which is the real problem, long haul isn't wanted much these days, neither rail nor road), the latter is darn expensive and someone has to foot the bill - Congress certainly won't.
> Fun fact: by law, Amtrak has priority. Not that it matters much, even back when laws themselves mattered.
Are you sure about that? I've never looked up the law, but my understanding is that, for most (all?) of its routes, Amtrak is running on privately owned track, and, on such track, freight has priority.
(I'm surprised at the number of downvotes. The replies indicated that I'm wrong, which is awesome in the sense that I like riding Amtrak and want it to have priority, and so I understand the frustration; but I think that I cannot be the only one who has heard from every Amtrak rider they've talked to that freight has priority, and surely it's a good thing to seek an authoritative answer? Maybe it looked like I was rhetorically saying that someone was wrong rather than honestly seeking clarification.)
Working on trains is also often nice so you do not really lose much time. You can just do a normal workday at the train including lunch and then quit working for the day when you arrive.
I do that route all the time, "work from train" days before in-office events in SF are one of my greatest pleasures.
If I had one wish it would be a second daily Coast Starlight offset 12 hours from the current one. LA Union to SJ Diridon is roughly 9am to 8pm in both directions, so my second train would be the perfect night train from LA to SF.
I took the Amtrak Cascades from Seattle to Portland recently and was pretty impressed. It’d be a bit silly to fly, but it’s long enough that if I drove myself I’d be kinda tired when I arrived. On the train I got to nap and eat something. The boarding experience is great and the staff were pros. It’s not cheap though; I think it was about $90 each way for business class, and about $70 for coach. I plan on taking it to Vancouver BC next. :)
I have investigated taking Amtrak for a family trip to do something different. "The journey is the destination" or something like that. I was branding it "slow travel" to the family so we could use it as a sort of modern life/digital detox. I also looked into a trans-Atlantic passage on the QM2.
I'm sad to report that renting a family bedroom or two joined bedrooms on Amtrak to take a journey on say the California Zephyr didn't pencil out. It is costlier than flying (about $2000 vs $1600 at the low end for both options, resp.) Even if you account for the cost of staying two extra nights at the destination it about breaks even.
With children I don't want to risk the days of travel becoming an ordeal as opposed to hours of flight time. The "digital detox" might quickly go sideways and require hours of screentime pacifiers. Maybe when they are older.
Happily the QM2 actually made financial sense and there would be more room to move about and explore the ship.
I think rail travel makes the most sense in the Acela context the article opened with - routes between cities that take less than a day. For cross-continent travel the time savings of air travel make rail travel a harder case to argue.
The point of cross continent rail travel is not being cheaper than air at all, it is about seeing and enjoying the country and the route, there is no easier or cheaper way to do that.
- A road trip would be both more expensive (fuel, hotels and maintenance/rental), strenuous and also less safe given the number of miles to be driven.
- There is quite little to see in a cruise if not near a shore or on a plane flying at cruising altitudes well above the clouds.
While times have changed and it is lot harder for parents now, I cannot help but remember growing up the number of cross country train trips just sitting at the window with nothing but a book/magazine or conversations with passengers and it was formative life experience even when quite young. It wasn't that long ago and my generation was just as addicted to tech but we were limited to doing that only on a desktop with a modem.
---
If you want to see and show the kids to help them understand the size and complex geography and beauty of the country they will inherit despite what limited time screen distractions allow, I don't think there is any better way to do it.
> The point of cross continent rail travel is not being cheaper than air at all, it is about seeing and enjoying the country and the route, there is no easier or cheaper way to do that.
Amtrak isn't useful for that. For see the continent you need to get off the train for a few hours here and there to see something. That means flexible tickets; more trains so you don't have to spend a day in a small town with 3 hours entertainment, and enough space that you can make a last minute decision to see some little tourist trap for the fun of it knowing you can get the next train.
> A road trip would be both more expensive (fuel, hotels and maintenance/rental),
Very much it depends. If you are single Amtrak is cheaper (coach seats). a family is a lot cheaper to drive, since most of the costs are fixed for everyone. You likely own the car and so are making payments anyway. Gas is the same for 1 person or a full car. Hotels are rented per room. My last trip I needed a rental car to get to the family reunion 1 hour from the station, just the cost of a rental car would have paid for gas and hotel to drive my own car (the strenuous miles is why we took the train anyway, but it was more expensive than driving)
> There is quite little to see in a cruise if not near a shore
I've never been on that type of cruise (they exist, just not what I've been on). What I've been on the sea days were near shore taking in the beautiful scenery (you don't take an Alaska cruise for the ports, you take the cruise to watch the shore on sea days), or the ship hopes between islands at night and so you are at a port all day (though next time I think I'd get a resort and stay on one island). Beware.
Amtrak is often a great choice to get around. However there are problems and they are not to be overlooked.
Cross country rail journeys will always be the domain of weirdo railfans (I say, having ridden many of them many times). Flying is just too economical past the first few hundred miles.
However, we live along the Surfliner route, and for weekend trips it's fantastic. It's a 1-3 hour penalty versus driving depending on which city we're going to, but the kids vastly prefer it because they're not strapped in and we can all interact.
The US should focus on medium speed rail (100-155mph). It is easier to upgrade existing track than build new high speed track. There are lots of routes that aren't worth doing for HSR but would be at slower speed.
Good example is the Amtrak Cascades which reaches 80mph. The rolling stock can reach 125 mph. High speed rail would be nice, but Portland, Seattle, Vancouver may not be big enough to support it.
These days, being in the flying sardine tin often beats out train travel. With more adoption, I’ll bet the price difference will be closer. The comfort factor alone means I’ll take the train over flying if it’s feasible, every time. Even coach on the northeast regional is so much nicer than flying, and you’re usually a lot closer to where you actually want to be when you get off.
Depends on where you are going - for my family vacation a sleeper for 4 is cheaper than flying by a lot (i live in a high priced air travel city, I would money driving to chicago despite the higher parking costs). However I have 5 people going and so it does't work out. (It doesn't help that amtrak dosen't suggest options like 2 rooms)
We went coach amtrak which was cheaper and more comfortable than flying. I'd do that again.
Amtrak would benefit from a coach-class sleeper, like they have in India or in Eastern Europe. They just need coach benches that convert to beds. If, for a reasonable price, you could lie flat at night behind a little curtain, like you can in e.g. Indian Railways 2nd Class, it would change the game completely. Without that, you can only travel comfortably during the day, and trips are limited to about eight hours for the non-masochist. With it, cross country would be fine. It doesn't seem that hard. Lots of other railways do it.
I've thought trains are cool ever since I was a kid reading about the Silver Streak and the Orient Express, so every now and then I look into travelling by train. Unfortunately, Amtrak is like someone was tasked with making train travel as inconvenient and expensive as possible to make the idea of state-funded rail look bad. It's so bad someone wrote a book about it, called "Derailed."
Yes. Perhaps it makes more sense for people "travelling" i.e. exploring the world where the fact that it is a nights accommodation too makes it a savings and speed is not an issue.
I used to have to take the train to college and back home on breaks and it was nice trip.
You can't bring a whole dorm and your closet, but a backpack and a bag for clothes are manageable. I always brought some bags of beef jerky and would watch the scenic view or listen to an audiobook. Just sitting on the train, enjoying my snack and watching nature was a nice way to pass time time.
Don't worry, if high-speed rail displaces flight they'll have the federal gropers jobs program for that too. Soon enough it will suck just as much as flying "for your security."
Security of that sort for high speed rail is extremely unusual, possibly non-existent. Spain does x-ray baggage, I think, but even that is pretty weird.
"Slower" only if you consider yourself to be the only individual that matters. High speed trains move way more people per mile per hour. Plus train stations can be located in much more convenient locations (directly in city centers), so even though your time in the air may be less time than you would be on a train, door-to-door home-to-destination may be faster.
Realistic HSR is regional. Connecting Boston through DC at 300 km/hr. Sacramento to San Diego. Chicago St. Louis Kansas City. Running track through states with more cattle than people would be a waste of capital. Flights from NYC to DC are barely long enough to get to cruising altitude. HSR would be great for that segment.
I heard that Caltrain toyed with the idea of partnering with waymo to get people to and from train stations more affordably but dang wouldn't it be nice if one of the ride hailing companies started offering shuttle type services to get you to the train station but while sharing with other people.
Better bus coverage and reliability would be ideal but perhaps this could be used to help make the case in the mean time.
The Dutch railways have offered ridiculously cheap bicycle rentals by almost every station for years now, and it's so helpful. No need to plan travel times, just tap your card and go.
Of course this also requires proper bicycle infrastructure to be available, but it shows how well this could work.
I rented one of those in Amsterdam then rode the beautiful tree-lined path along canals to Utrecht one day. I then rode back with the bike to Amsterdam. When I arrived, I was told this was not allowed, but it wasn't clear why. Maybe the municipal bikes need to stay in city limits? This was about a decade ago. Maybe you can enlighten me?
Bikes can work great for travelers aged from, say, 13 to 70 without much luggage. Not so great for travelers outside that age range, with more luggage, or with physical disabilities. I wonder what fraction of travelers falls into the latter category.
> Better bus coverage and reliability would be ideal
Busses seem suboptimal if you don’t need a driver. They’re too big.
Peoples’ travel plans in space and time are naturally heterogenous; the less we force passengers to travel to and from stops or change their plans to match a schedule, the more people will ride.
Not when you are operating around scheduled transport like trains and planes. Buses are optimal in that case.
If you've ever taken a cruise you've seen this work beautifully. Even with multiple excursions, busses are optimal for getting people around because the 100s of people on the ship are ultimately going to the same places.
Why would this be an issue with the driver? I don't mean that combatively; I really don't see it. It seems to me that any form of transit, autonomous or not, either runs on some sort of centrally controlled schedule subject to optimization, or can be summoned on demand, in which case it only works as long as not too many people use it (usually because of cost), or else it will lead to traffic congestion and worsen rather than improve traffic.
ACE Rail (from Stockton to San Jose) has an absolutely wonderful network of eight shuttle buses that meet the train when it arrives at the Great America station[1]. They fan out across most of the Silicon Valley so that there's no need to wait for a bus or make connections between buses.
Every commuter rail line really should do this. Obviously Caltrain could not do this for every train, but how about some trains?
The Avelias are nice but the problem with the Acela hasn't been the rolling stock in a long time, it's that it can only reach top speed (~150mph) on a tiny portion of the track, mostly between Boston and Providence and some more in New Jersey. The rest of it, we're running proper high-speed trains at like 70mph, unfortunately. Fixing the alignment and upgrading the track is a kind of political nightmare that upgrading the trains just isn't.
The problem with every train is that it doesn't go faster. But Acela is already faster than driving, which is a benchmark no other train can match in North America. Probably faster, door-to-door, than flying, unless you ride its entire length.
Whenever I go to the East coast, I make a point of finding some reason to ride Amtrak, preferably Acela. There's just something magical about staying anywhere between Boston and DC, and yet only being one relaxing, couple-hour trip away from central Manhattan, downtown Philly, etc.
I wish the West Coast also had frequent service between Vancouver, Seattle, Portland, SF, LA, and points between. Driving and flying stresses me out and is generally an awful experience. When I arrive by train, I'm more relaxed than when I started.
It always floored me when I moved to the Bay Area that Caltrain from SJ to SF took about as long as Amtrak from Philly to NYC (twice the distance). I know they are different systems and electric Caltrain is faster, but still, it felt like a step back rail wise. Also, Amtrak out here stops running so ridiculously early, which is very frustrating.
Caltrain is a commuter rail and Amtrak is regional. Caltrain makes 15-20 stops between SF and San Jose. They aren’t the same sort of system at all. It’s like comparing Amtrak to Metro North.
The low-hanging fruit is regional rail. Caltrain, LIRR, et cetera. That together with a robust metro system that links parking garages and airports is the realistic multi-modal transport we need.
Too many rail projects seem to have been prosecuted by purists who are anti-car or anti-plane. That leads to bloat, or ignoring designs that would increase real ridership (e.g. adequate parking at endpoint, or RORO stock).
The State of North Carolina runs several trains a day between Charlotte and Raleigh (The Piedmont). It runs along the same tracks as Amtrak's Carolinian. The Crescent, Palmetto, Silver Meteor and Floridian aren't focused on North Carolina but make stops in the state.
I've ridden the Piedmont a couple of times and it's very convenient compared to driving, especially during inclement weather. Could it be better? Yes - especially in Charlotte where they have a half-completed station in Uptown while the current station is in a sketchy industrial area and isn't convenient for anyone.
Once Charlotte Gateway station is completed it will link Amtrak service with local commuter rail and streetcar service (and bus/ride-share).
I recommend taking a look at Newsom's proposal for a regional program unifying San Joaquin Valley, Sacramento, and the Bay Area into a single unified rail system along with expanding ACE to Modesto a couple years ago - that would have been a game changer, but the purists struck along with other more politicially palatable options.
> Too many rail projects seem to have been prosecuted by purists who are anti-car or anti-plane
Exactly! And a la Tsebeleis, they are a significant veto player that are functionally turning a stag hunt into a Nash equilibrium.
Is the frequency and reliability of the attached rail service sufficient? Park and ride can work pretty well, but you do need a reliable rail service attached to it.
Readit News
Since Amtrak is often delayed due to freight having priority, traveling the other way is more risky from a scheduling point of view, since the train starts in Seattle and could already be heavily delayed by the time it gets to San Jose.
https://www.amtrakvacations.com/travel-styles/famous-routes/...
Fun fact: by law, Amtrak has priority. Not that it matters much, even back when laws themselves mattered.
Could this be fixed by legislation on max train length to ensure all trains fit in sidings? Yes. Will that legislation get passed? No.
An interesting video on the subject: https://youtu.be/qQTjLWIHN74?si=t3u3iyZj1kRQQUCe
Apparently the problem is the law is not enforced that much? And that there are loopholes around it.
[1] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/norfolk-southern-agrees-give-...
But when you don't have them or only every 100km or whatnot, or any of the potential places (such as in a train station) just isn't long enough to accept and buffer a 3 miles long train... then good luck, there just is no physical opportunity for the faster passenger train to speed ahead, not to mention the absurd amount of energy wasted in braking and then re-accelerating that 3 mile freight monster.
Fixing this would be possible - either by limiting the maximum length of a train or by forcing the extension of parallel rail segments. The former makes logistics significantly more challenging plus it requires more staff (which is the real problem, long haul isn't wanted much these days, neither rail nor road), the latter is darn expensive and someone has to foot the bill - Congress certainly won't.
Are you sure about that? I've never looked up the law, but my understanding is that, for most (all?) of its routes, Amtrak is running on privately owned track, and, on such track, freight has priority.
(I'm surprised at the number of downvotes. The replies indicated that I'm wrong, which is awesome in the sense that I like riding Amtrak and want it to have priority, and so I understand the frustration; but I think that I cannot be the only one who has heard from every Amtrak rider they've talked to that freight has priority, and surely it's a good thing to seek an authoritative answer? Maybe it looked like I was rhetorically saying that someone was wrong rather than honestly seeking clarification.)
If I had one wish it would be a second daily Coast Starlight offset 12 hours from the current one. LA Union to SJ Diridon is roughly 9am to 8pm in both directions, so my second train would be the perfect night train from LA to SF.
Deleted Comment
I'm sad to report that renting a family bedroom or two joined bedrooms on Amtrak to take a journey on say the California Zephyr didn't pencil out. It is costlier than flying (about $2000 vs $1600 at the low end for both options, resp.) Even if you account for the cost of staying two extra nights at the destination it about breaks even.
With children I don't want to risk the days of travel becoming an ordeal as opposed to hours of flight time. The "digital detox" might quickly go sideways and require hours of screentime pacifiers. Maybe when they are older.
Happily the QM2 actually made financial sense and there would be more room to move about and explore the ship.
I think rail travel makes the most sense in the Acela context the article opened with - routes between cities that take less than a day. For cross-continent travel the time savings of air travel make rail travel a harder case to argue.
- A road trip would be both more expensive (fuel, hotels and maintenance/rental), strenuous and also less safe given the number of miles to be driven.
- There is quite little to see in a cruise if not near a shore or on a plane flying at cruising altitudes well above the clouds.
While times have changed and it is lot harder for parents now, I cannot help but remember growing up the number of cross country train trips just sitting at the window with nothing but a book/magazine or conversations with passengers and it was formative life experience even when quite young. It wasn't that long ago and my generation was just as addicted to tech but we were limited to doing that only on a desktop with a modem.
---
If you want to see and show the kids to help them understand the size and complex geography and beauty of the country they will inherit despite what limited time screen distractions allow, I don't think there is any better way to do it.
Amtrak isn't useful for that. For see the continent you need to get off the train for a few hours here and there to see something. That means flexible tickets; more trains so you don't have to spend a day in a small town with 3 hours entertainment, and enough space that you can make a last minute decision to see some little tourist trap for the fun of it knowing you can get the next train.
> A road trip would be both more expensive (fuel, hotels and maintenance/rental),
Very much it depends. If you are single Amtrak is cheaper (coach seats). a family is a lot cheaper to drive, since most of the costs are fixed for everyone. You likely own the car and so are making payments anyway. Gas is the same for 1 person or a full car. Hotels are rented per room. My last trip I needed a rental car to get to the family reunion 1 hour from the station, just the cost of a rental car would have paid for gas and hotel to drive my own car (the strenuous miles is why we took the train anyway, but it was more expensive than driving)
> There is quite little to see in a cruise if not near a shore
I've never been on that type of cruise (they exist, just not what I've been on). What I've been on the sea days were near shore taking in the beautiful scenery (you don't take an Alaska cruise for the ports, you take the cruise to watch the shore on sea days), or the ship hopes between islands at night and so you are at a port all day (though next time I think I'd get a resort and stay on one island). Beware.
Amtrak is often a great choice to get around. However there are problems and they are not to be overlooked.
However, we live along the Surfliner route, and for weekend trips it's fantastic. It's a 1-3 hour penalty versus driving depending on which city we're going to, but the kids vastly prefer it because they're not strapped in and we can all interact.
Good example is the Amtrak Cascades which reaches 80mph. The rolling stock can reach 125 mph. High speed rail would be nice, but Portland, Seattle, Vancouver may not be big enough to support it.
We went coach amtrak which was cheaper and more comfortable than flying. I'd do that again.
Deleted Comment
You can't bring a whole dorm and your closet, but a backpack and a bag for clothes are manageable. I always brought some bags of beef jerky and would watch the scenic view or listen to an audiobook. Just sitting on the train, enjoying my snack and watching nature was a nice way to pass time time.
They're like aliens seeing humans preparing food but not understanding what taste is.
Better bus coverage and reliability would be ideal but perhaps this could be used to help make the case in the mean time.
Of course this also requires proper bicycle infrastructure to be available, but it shows how well this could work.
Busses seem suboptimal if you don’t need a driver. They’re too big.
Peoples’ travel plans in space and time are naturally heterogenous; the less we force passengers to travel to and from stops or change their plans to match a schedule, the more people will ride.
If you've ever taken a cruise you've seen this work beautifully. Even with multiple excursions, busses are optimal for getting people around because the 100s of people on the ship are ultimately going to the same places.
Consistently one of the most sold-out and profitable routes.
These used to be quite a big deal, but in practice most such services have died out.
There also used to be _car planes_: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_Traders_Carvair
Every commuter rail line really should do this. Obviously Caltrain could not do this for every train, but how about some trains?
[1] https://cdn.acerail.com/wp-content/uploads/ACE-Shuttle-Map-S...
Is Brightline faster than driving?
The new LA-Las Vegas line should be faster than driving, but it's not here yet.
I wish the West Coast also had frequent service between Vancouver, Seattle, Portland, SF, LA, and points between. Driving and flying stresses me out and is generally an awful experience. When I arrive by train, I'm more relaxed than when I started.
Too many rail projects seem to have been prosecuted by purists who are anti-car or anti-plane. That leads to bloat, or ignoring designs that would increase real ridership (e.g. adequate parking at endpoint, or RORO stock).
I've ridden the Piedmont a couple of times and it's very convenient compared to driving, especially during inclement weather. Could it be better? Yes - especially in Charlotte where they have a half-completed station in Uptown while the current station is in a sketchy industrial area and isn't convenient for anyone.
Once Charlotte Gateway station is completed it will link Amtrak service with local commuter rail and streetcar service (and bus/ride-share).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piedmont_(train)
Amen!
I recommend taking a look at Newsom's proposal for a regional program unifying San Joaquin Valley, Sacramento, and the Bay Area into a single unified rail system along with expanding ACE to Modesto a couple years ago - that would have been a game changer, but the purists struck along with other more politicially palatable options.
> Too many rail projects seem to have been prosecuted by purists who are anti-car or anti-plane
Exactly! And a la Tsebeleis, they are a significant veto player that are functionally turning a stag hunt into a Nash equilibrium.