Amtrak Thread
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /trv/ - Travel
You are currently reading a thread in /trv/ - Travel
American here. I've never ridden Amtrak. What are your thoughts on it?
I'm thinking about using two or three weeks this summer to travel around the US. I'm from Cincinnati and I think I would go across to San Diego, then up to the Pacific Northwest, then back around in some fashion, stopping and staying in various cities as I see fit. Is this financially feasible compared to flying? Will a good portion of the rides be scenic or will I just be staring at bushes and power lines?
TL;DR Is Amtrak good for a scenic, haphazard trip around the US?
Can you even get from one coast to the other and back in three weeks on Amtrak?
>looks it up
Cincinnati has 3 trains a week, all of which leave for Chicago at 1:45 AM.
>fucking Amtrak, man
>>1058790
Might want to check out this.
http://www.amtrak.com/take-the-trains-across-america-with-usa-rail-pass
You probably would want the 30 days option. Even if you aren't going that long, you will want more segments.
I just rode from Colorado-Sacramento-Vancouver. Really scenic, only real problem was a federal agent searched me in Reno, but I set off some flags (I'm Canadian, was riding it internationally and had bought my ticket the day of departure).
You could take the California Zephyr from Chicago to Oakland. That goes through Colorado and the Sierra Nevadas. Was pretty amazing. Then from Oakland go down to San Diego and up to Seattle on the Pacific Starlight (Oregon is pretty good), then take the Empire Builder along the northern route back to Chicago.
Only problem with scenery is variation. Like you'll have 24 hours of fields, 12 hours of mountains, 12 hours of desert. But going west you'll have much better scenery than going east.
>>1058797
>Can you even get from one coast to the other and back in three weeks on Amtrak?
Yes.
>Cincinnati has 3 trains a week, all of which leave for Chicago at 1:45 AM.
>fucking Amtrak, man
The line goes from New York to Chicago. Cincinnati isn't that big a city, and the schedule is designed to be repeated and not set for you.
In general busing is better for short distance traveling.
Depends on your definition of good.
If by good you mean a slow, expensive, and boring as shit as you watch mile after mile of cornfield pass by, then yeah it's probably a blast.
>>1058803
The Cincinnati metro area has over 2 million people. While it is a set schedule, it's a fucking embarrassment that our national railway is that fucking inept.
>busing is better for short distance traveling.
only because of the ineptness of Amtrak. 300 miles is a great distance for hsr
>>1058812
*Cincy to Chicago, that is
>>1058806
What were your destination and origin? How was the ride itself, aside from the scenery?
>expensive
Versus flights to various cities? I don't have a car.
>>1058802
Did you stop anywhere to stay a night? I'm planning to hop off at stay at hostels here and there.
>>1058807
And New York is 11 million and Chicago 9.
Amtrak isn't for locals to travel from big city to big city. They would rather fly for one hour than train for 8. It's for people to go to or from a smaller city, or for tourists to go from a big city.
Should the train be 8 hours late, so it can go to Cincinnati at a better time?
>>1058817
No, I was pretty unprepared and the rail passes seem to take some preparation to use.
If you buy individual tickets, you pretty much just pay to get on the train and riding it 100 miles or 500 miles doesn't cost much different.
I wish I did get off in a place like Glennwood Springs, Granby or Lake Tahoe, but I didn't realize how bad the Canadian exchange rate was, and I can see mountains here for much less.
>>1058818
>Should the train be 8 hours late, so it can go to Cincinnati at a better time?
Maybe you should run more than 3 trains a week on a route that serves 20+ million people, that might work.
>they would rather fly for one hour than train for 8.
Or maybe you could speed the trains up so it doesn't take 8 hours to go 300 miles from Cincy to Chicago. That's a two hour trip downtown to downtown anywhere else in the developed world
>>1058822
>Or maybe you could speed the trains up so it doesn't take 8 hours to go 300 miles from Cincy to Chicago. That's a two hour trip downtown to downtown anywhere else in the developed world
Cars drive 150 mph in urban areas? The train has to slow way down every time in enters and leaves a city. It leaves Cincinnati, enters and leaves Indianapolis and enters Chicago. Throw in a few stops and it makes sense it's only 3 hours slower than driving.
>>1058822
It's not just that we don't have high speed trains. Passenger trains and cargo train share the same tracks, and cargo ALWAYS has priority. A passenger train will wait or be rerouted to the nearest station to wait for a cargo train to pass before continuing. The way we are currently laid out, trying to get a cross country high speed system in place is a pipe dream. Illinois is supposedly going to build a high speed system connecting Chicago to Springfield, and eventually to St Louis. We'll see how that goes.
>>1058832
On the Northeast Corridor, where cargo trains don't have priority, the Boston to Washington run is 454 miles (732 km) in 6 hours 45 minutes for Acela, or about 8 hours for the slower Regional trains.
Improvements cost money that no one except rail fans wants to spend. (I'm still annoyed at Gov. Christie rejecting the new trans-Hudson tunnel project.)
Have to see how the new California rail project goes.
First of all there are no trains that go from NYC to Chicago that go through Cincinnati, you are thinking of Cleveland via the Lake Shore Limited. The only train that passes through Cinncy is the Capitol Limited (or maybe the Cardinal) which is a D.C- Chicago train.
>>1058832
>Illinois is supposedly going to build a high speed system connecting Chicago to Springfield, and eventually to St Louis. We'll see how that goes.
Illinois DoT is spending less than a billion to upgrade service between St. Louis and Chicago from 79mph to 110mph. It's not "high speed rail" it's "high-er speed rail" They will still use shitty amfleets pulled by P42 diesel locomotives like they do currently.
>Passenger trains and cargo trains share the same tracks, and cargo ALWAYS has priority.
Freight trains are required by federal law to give the RoW to passenger services. If they do not comply they get hefty fines. Some freight RR's are better than this at others but the law is still the law.
>The way we are currently laid out, trying to get a cross country high speed system in place is a pipe dream.
No one said we need trans-continental HSR but it is still very viable in places with high concentrations of metro areas under 600 miles apart. Building an HSR line from Chicago to NYC and expanding the current NEC from D.C. to Atlanta are still very viable options. The California HSR has already broke ground and a private company is about to break ground on the Texas Central Railway (Dallas-Houston 200mph HSR line) including a private venture in Florida to bring 110mph serivce between Miami and Orlando.
>>1058837
According to the current schedule, the Cardinal runs New York to Chicago, via Washington, Charlottesville, Cincinnati, and Indianapolis.
1147 miles in about 27:20.
>>1058846
Woops, forgot the Cardinal went up the NEC after it got to Washington. That's still retarded though.
>>1058790
Literally search "scenic trains" and understand if it's not labelled that, then avoid it, and fly the other legs of the trip.
California Zephyr is great from SLC to Denver, forget the rest of the trip really.
I thought USA didn't have trains like this?
Why do people always say that?
>>1058945
>>1058945
Because there are better methods to get around the U.S.
I took an 8 hour train ride from a town close to mine in Virginia down to Charlotte in 2013 and holy hell was it depressing. You stop at every station along the line and you're only going about 50mph the whole way though. I had nothing to eat and my laptop and phone died halfway through the trip and all top of all of this I had a cold with a MRSA infection on my upper leg.
It may have just been a bad because of the variables involved but I don't think I'll ever take a train ride like that unless it's cross country and I can at least move from car-to-car.
>>1058945
In the Midwest, you will run into religious cults that you forgot existed, but are still presently part of the population (flying is a curse from the devil, but train travel is as natural as sunshine!)
They are long, they are uncomfortable, and unless you are parked at a station you probably won't have Wi-Fi so bring a book.
>>1058790
Only experience I have is with the Pacific Surfliner, goes from San Diego along the California coast to northern california. It is very relaxing and my favorite way to get up the coast especially since using a car is not always the smartest choice, a 2 hour car ride turns into a 3 1/2 hour car ride when you could be spending just 1 1/2 hours on train whilst in a relaxing quiet environment.
Iv taken amtrack from west palm to union station in d.c. Wasnt bad, but be sure to bring enough stuff to entertain you if looking out the window gets boring. At least 2 books and a computer with a localized wifi or so should be good.
>>1059184
>Because there are better methods to get around the U.S.
This guy knows.
The auto-train is decently roomy clean and luxurious, so are the commuter trains in the eastern corridor or to like the metro DC suburbs. The rest of the nation, if it isn't labelled an actual "scenic train" there is no view, and it passes through industrial corridors, what trains are primarily used for...transporting gravel and produce. There are no cool houses or cute towns along the tracks. Think derelict minimum cost construction from the 1940s and never once repaired or painted.
If it's scenic it is often traversing nice vistas, great valleys or cool tunnels or something like that, and as such, the train line will throw in the nicer/plusher cars, or amazing historic cars such as glass-topped ones, or quaint little diner cars. These are the ONLY trains you will want to ride for whatever kind of train experience you have in mind.
I have been on trains around the world, from Alaska to Prague to Japan, to sectional historic trains like the great smoky railroad, north conway and mt washington cog, fort myers murder trains, key west, trolleys, canada, cuba, mexicos copper canyon, including trains that are no longer in existence like the original "banana train" in costa rica. I really wouldn't do what you are thinking to do. I'd jet out to some portion of the trip, pick up the train there, take a reasonable amount of time on it, and then fly around and explore a couple locales and then head back home. I'd actually make the train ride itself the return. I'd also suggest you should not count on being with passengers you'd want to hang with, so would have the most fun with a companion you easily spend time with for hours. I've been on the auto train with screaming kids racing through cars and nothing but quiet but reserved retired people, either/or.
