Why do so few LD passengers travel by train?

Most people look to the airlines for their long distance travel needs. If you talk to many air passengers, few seem to know anything about train travel, especially LD train travel.

US Airlines carry something like 800,000,000 people per year. I believe that last year Amrak served just short of 30 million pasengers, but only a small amount rode the LD routes. I cannot find the figure but we may assume that its only 10-12% of the pasengers.

Then we may ask, why don't more travelers use Amtrak? Up until 6 years ago, I was one of those travelers that used airlines almost exclusively for LD travel. The other percent was handled by car. This all changed when I suggested to my wife that we take the AutoTrain to Florida. NOw all of our LD travel is by train but we confine that travel to trips with one overnight and those not more than about 27 hrs, at least so far.

IMO the reason that more travelers do not use the train is because they know little to nothing about it. I talk to my friends, neighbors and relatives about it and they cannot imagine what train travel is like. Most of them say "I can get there is a few hours by plane so why should I take an overnight trip"? When they ask why do you take the train, we simply say "because we like it".

The point is that the most of the traveling public is ignorant about rail travel. Amtrak is poorly marketed and still remains a very low priority in government circles. Government will heavily subsidize airline travel with trillions but is very stingy when it comes to Amtrak. Amtrak recieves less than 1% of the total transportation budget and it still creates a controversy amoung the politicos. This was the philosophy when the Nixon administration formed Amtrak (yes folks Amtrak was formed under a Republican administration) and it still continues today. Under a succession of both Democratic and Republican administrations things haven't changed very much but at least the downsizing has slowed in recent years.

I agree with that fact that most are not informed about travel by rail. Last summer we took at trip from Washington, DC to Flagstaff and traveled with three of my sisters and their husbands. The first trip by rail for any of them. Now my sisters (two of the three) cannot wait to take the next train trip.

One challenge is the cost, especially for sleepers. In order to keep costs down you need to book long in advance on western trains especially and many just don't have that to option. I really believe that if more sleepers were available, making the cost less per unit, not requiring booking so far in advance, many more would take the train for LD trips. In talking to my recently converted sisters this is what they say.

Of course we all know the situation relative to equipment!

dlagrua said:

Most people look to the airlines for their long distance travel needs. If you talk to many air passengers, few seem to know anything about train travel, especially LD train travel.

US Airlines carry something like 800,000,000 people per year. I believe that last year Amrak served just short of 30 million pasengers, but only a small amount rode the LD routes. I cannot find the figure but we may assume that its only 10-12% of the pasengers.

Then we may ask, why don't more travelers use Amtrak? Up until 6 years ago, I was one of those travelers that used airlines almost exclusively for LD travel. The other percent was handled by car. This all changed when I suggested to my wife that we take the AutoTrain to Florida. NOw all of our LD travel is by train but we confine that travel to trips with one overnight and those not more than about 27 hrs, at least so far.

IMO the reason that more travelers do not use the train is because they know little to nothing about it. I talk to my friends, neighbors and relatives about it and they cannot imagine what train travel is like. Most of them say "I can get there is a few hours by plane so why should I take an overnight trip"? When they ask why do you take the train, we simply say "because we like it".

The point is that the most of the traveling public is ignorant about rail travel. Amtrak is poorly marketed and still remains a very low priority in government circles. Government will heavily subsidize airline travel with trillions but is very stingy when it comes to Amtrak. Amtrak recieves less than 1% of the total transportation budget and it still creates a controversy amoung the politicos. This was the philosophy when the Nixon administration formed Amtrak (yes folks Amtrak was formed under a Republican administration) and it still continues today. Under a succession of both Democratic and Republican administrations things haven't changed very much but at least the downsizing has slowed in recent years.

Click to expand...

The reasons are legion, so you have stated just a few. Your personal experiences are pretty close to the mark, and similar to mine. Because Amtrak has to be "everything to everybody" they can't/won't cater to the "land-cruise" market, making LD trips a truly memorable experience for those willing to pay. It is usually only rail-fans or hard core who choose/know about the LD and sleepers.

I have had several friends/relatives try Amtrak over the last twenty-thirty years, basically because they see my passion for train travel and think, "there must be something to this", cause Jerry is not a complete idiot. The resulting experiences have been less than stellar.

Other than business jaunts for my co-workers in the NEC, none of my friends/neighbors/relatives who have opted to travel an Amtrak LD have EVER repeated their trip on Amtrak. NONE. Over the last thirty years. Granted, this is only anecdotal, but it's been consistent.

And years ago I learned to "temper" my enthusiasm, when folks would show an interest in trying. I"d still be all gung-ho and stuff, but would also at least paint them a real picture of what to expect, and what to do in case "X" happened.

Does the general public "know little to nothing about Amtrak"? Yup. The occasional news feed (good/bad/indifferent) does more to generate interest from the public than all of Amtrak's limited advertising.

But when you only have daily departures, and sleepers are often full, the need to advertise lessens, other than to build brand awareness.

The media (for a few nanoseconds) jumped on the fact that Joe Biden frequently used Amtrak to travel to DC. And like his politics or not (please, let's not turn this thread into a discussion on that) OBama is the most Amtrak-friendly prez we've seen in a long while.

Image if a healthy Graham Claytor (RIP) were heading up Amtrak NOW, with the current admin? There I go, back to fantasizing.....

Parity, that's all we can hope for in dollars spent on transportation. JUST IMAGINE what our passenger rail network would look like if over the last 50 years, we had spent just 5%, heck, even 2% or 3% of our transportation budget on passenger rail......

I think HSR is our best bet for getting the general public truly interested in train travel, but we have yet to see a shovel turn. I hope we do.

rrdude said:

dlagrua said:

Most people look to the airlines for their long distance travel needs. If you talk to many air passengers, few seem to know anything about train travel, especially LD train travel.

US Airlines carry something like 800,000,000 people per year. I believe that last year Amrak served just short of 30 million pasengers, but only a small amount rode the LD routes. I cannot find the figure but we may assume that its only 10-12% of the pasengers.

Then we may ask, why don't more travelers use Amtrak? Up until 6 years ago, I was one of those travelers that used airlines almost exclusively for LD travel. The other percent was handled by car. This all changed when I suggested to my wife that we take the AutoTrain to Florida. NOw all of our LD travel is by train but we confine that travel to trips with one overnight and those not more than about 27 hrs, at least so far.

IMO the reason that more travelers do not use the train is because they know little to nothing about it. I talk to my friends, neighbors and relatives about it and they cannot imagine what train travel is like. Most of them say "I can get there is a few hours by plane so why should I take an overnight trip"? When they ask why do you take the train, we simply say "because we like it".

The point is that the most of the traveling public is ignorant about rail travel. Amtrak is poorly marketed and still remains a very low priority in government circles. Government will heavily subsidize airline travel with trillions but is very stingy when it comes to Amtrak. Amtrak recieves less than 1% of the total transportation budget and it still creates a controversy amoung the politicos. This was the philosophy when the Nixon administration formed Amtrak (yes folks Amtrak was formed under a Republican administration) and it still continues today. Under a succession of both Democratic and Republican administrations things haven't changed very much but at least the downsizing has slowed in recent years.

Click to expand...

The reasons are legion, so you have stated just a few. Your personal experiences are pretty close to the mark, and similar to mine. Because Amtrak has to be "everything to everybody" they can't/won't cater to the "land-cruise" market, making LD trips a truly memorable experience for those willing to pay. It is usually only rail-fans or hard core who choose/know about the LD and sleepers.

I have had several friends/relatives try Amtrak over the last twenty-thirty years, basically because they see my passion for train travel and think, "there must be something to this", cause Jerry is not a complete idiot. The resulting experiences have been less than stellar.

Other than business jaunts for my co-workers in the NEC, none of my friends/neighbors/relatives who have opted to travel an Amtrak LD have EVER repeated their trip on Amtrak. NONE. Over the last thirty years. Granted, this is only anecdotal, but it's been consistent.

And years ago I learned to "temper" my enthusiasm, when folks would show an interest in trying. I"d still be all gung-ho and stuff, but would also at least paint them a real picture of what to expect, and what to do in case "X" happened.

Does the general public "know little to nothing about Amtrak"? Yup. The occasional news feed (good/bad/indifferent) does more to generate interest from the public than all of Amtrak's limited advertising.

But when you only have daily departures, and sleepers are often full, the need to advertise lessens, other than to build brand awareness.

The media (for a few nanoseconds) jumped on the fact that Joe Biden frequently used Amtrak to travel to DC. And like his politics or not (please, let's not turn this thread into a discussion on that) OBama is the most Amtrak-friendly prez we've seen in a long while.

Image if a healthy Graham Claytor (RIP) were heading up Amtrak NOW, with the current admin? There I go, back to fantasizing.....

Parity, that's all we can hope for in dollars spent on transportation. JUST IMAGINE what our passenger rail network would look like if over the last 50 years, we had spent just 5%, heck, even 2% or 3% of our transportation budget on passenger rail......

I think HSR is our best bet for getting the general public truly interested in train travel, but we have yet to see a shovel turn. I hope we do.

Click to expand...

Just to put some numbers out here for discussion - October - July 23,889,483 passengers rode Amtrak of those:

8,697,736 rode Acela, Regionals or Special Trains = 36.4% +4.7% vs. '09

11,471,164 rode State Supported and Other Short Distance Corridors = 48% +6.7% vs. '09

3,720,583 rode Long Distance Trains = 15.5 +7.4% vs. '09

Capacity, time to travel and lack of awareness are three of the constraining factors for long distance travel. Amtrak has somewhere in the neighborhood of 1.5% of the nations travel market.

haolerider said:

Capacity, time to travel and lack of awareness are three of the constraining factors for long distance travel. Amtrak has somewhere in the neighborhood of 1.5% of the nations travel market.

Click to expand...

So.............., you're saying, there's room for growth?

rrdude said:

haolerider said:

Capacity, time to travel and lack of awareness are three of the constraining factors for long distance travel. Amtrak has somewhere in the neighborhood of 1.5% of the nations travel market.

Click to expand...

So.............., you're saying, there's room for growth?

Click to expand...

I would normally say "there is no way to go but up'; however knowing the history of Amtrak/Government funding/support; that might be a mis-statement!!

rrdude said:

I have had several friends/relatives try Amtrak over the last twenty-thirty years, basically because they see my passion for train travel and think, "there must be something to this", cause Jerry is not a complete idiot. The resulting experiences have been less than stellar.

Other than business jaunts for my co-workers in the NEC, none of my friends/neighbors/relatives who have opted to travel an Amtrak LD have EVER repeated their trip on Amtrak. NONE. Over the last thirty years. Granted, this is only anecdotal, but it's been consistent.

Click to expand...

While I haven't persuaded a large number of people to try out Amtrak LD travel, I've certainly had a few converts. My parents have had decently positive experiences on the Auto Train and are repeat customers. They'll also ride Amtrak on and off the NEC on short to medium distance trains (Pennsylvanian, Vermonter, Adirondack, etc).

I persuaded a friend to move across the country on the LSL and the CZ. She went coach the whole way and absolutely loved it and would like to do it again. Her parents also ended up going on an extended LD train trip and had so much fun they want to repeat it again this year. Her cousins have also gotten into the LD train thing, apparently.

I do think inconsistent service/OTP play into not having a lot of repeat customers, but I even if Amtrak operated its LD trains 95% on time and had stellar customer service, I still don't think LD train travel would become much more than a niche.

Why? Three reasons: 1) Frequency/Convenience, 2) Cost, 3) Time

Most places are only served by one LD train a day in each direction, if that. That results in decreased convenience for the rider, especially for the areas where the trains rumbled through early in the morning. The limited number of trains also results in a decreased ability to make connections. Here's a great example: I live in Burlington, VT. My sister lives in Pittsburgh - I'd love to take an LD visit her. During June-October, I can cross the lake by ferry and take the Adirondack to the LSL and get off somewhere in Ohio at a very early hour in the morning. It's just not worth it - I can get a convenient connection right from the Burlington airport. More frequent trains would result in me being able to connect from the Vermonter and get into Ohio at a time that is much more reasonable. I think limited frequency is a sizable inhibiting factor due to odd times, reduced connections and general inconvenience.

Secondly, the number one question I get asked when I book LD trains is how much they cost. Unless you can snag low bucket roomettes (and very few people plan travel a year out), it's almost always much cheaper to fly, especially booking in the 2-4 months timeframe that most people seem to plan their trips in. Coach LD travel is just not much fun (IMO), and the cost of sleepers drives people away. I'm not saying they they're overpriced - I think at everything but the high buckets, they're priced reasonable compared to the product you are getting. Amtrak needs to expand their sleeping options to include slumbercoachs or European-style shared sleeping spaces if they want to bring in a larger percentage of people on LD trains.

Thirdly, people just don't have the time, or don't believe they have the time to take the train. It's hard enough persuading people to take the Vermonter, which takes three hours longer than driving from Burlington to Connecticut. Three hours is nothing compared to how much longer a LD train takes. Most people have very limited banks of vacation and simply can't spend the time to take a train both ways to their destination, if it will take 2-3 days. When I travel on company business by rail, I have to take vacation time for most of my time on the train, whereas I don't when I fly. Most people aren't willing to spend that kind of time getting to their destination. Now, personally, I don't understand why more people who drive LD don't take the train, but I understand why air travel dominates the LD market.

I think the latter will improve a lot with greater connectivity on the train. On train trips, I connect back to my office over a cellular connection and can spend time working, making taking the train more productive than flying or driving and also allowing me to count that as working time, versus vacation time. That's a major selling point of rail travel for me.

Look at the NEC, say from BOS-WAS. Flying is quicker, but Amtrak still gets a sizable share of passengers. Why? Train travel is more comfortable and enjoyable, but there's also a variety of departures, relatively competitive fares (especially booking on short notice) and great connectivity options, allowing time on the train to be productive time.

While the time required to travel long distance will also drive away a certain number of potential passengers, I think it could become a lot more popular if frequencies were increased, there were better price points for sleeping accommodations and connectivity options were increased and advertised. Also, higher speed rail would make a huge difference. If there was a 110 MPH line from New York to Chicago, can you imagine how many people would travel on that line? And that's not even approaching HSR!

I agree with the point that Amtrak is a mere figment of the passenger rail systems of years past. If you look in the museum of railraod timetables above, its depressing how many cities and towns passenger rail no longer serves. Traveling by rail also has the conotation of being an old outdated way to travel LD, especially among our youth. If Amtrak served more cities and had more frequent service it should boost business.

I believe that Amtrak would benefit greatly by having more open houses like they do on National Train Day. Most travelers have never seen a sleeper or a dining car and it might surprise some that by rail you can sleep in your own room or roomette, relax and have a drink in a Sightseer lounge, and eat dinner in a diner car with a restaurant style setting. Yes this is common for us rail travelers but believe me most people don't even realize that in 2010 all this is still available. To top it off Amtrak NEVER features sleeper service in TV ads. I can only guess its because they just don't have the equipment to accomodate a big boost in sleeper passengers.

dlagrua said:

I agree with the point that Amtrak is a mere figment of the passenger rail systems of years past. If you look in the museum of railraod timetables above, its depressing how many cities and towns passenger rail no longer serves. Traveling by rail also has the conotation of being an old outdated way to travel LD, especially among our youth. If Amtrak served more cities and had more frequent service it should boost business.

I believe that Amtrak would benefit greatly by having more open houses like they do on National Train Day. Most travelers have never seen a sleeper or a dining car and it might surprise some that by rail you can sleep in your own room or roomette, relax and have a drink in a Sightseer lounge, and eat dinner in a diner car with a restaurant style setting. Yes this is common for us rail travelers but believe me most people don't even realize that in 2010 all this is still available. To top it off Amtrak NEVER features sleeper service in TV ads. I can only guess its because they just don't have the equipment to accomodate a big boost in sleeper passengers.

Click to expand...

I would agree that more open houses on National Train Day would be beneficial, but the reality is that there is not enough equipment to have sleepers and lounge cars at more locations.

Amtrak does feature sleeping cars in some of their print ads; however there is always the risk that Congress will again refer to long distance trains as "Land Cruises" with the arguement that taxpayers should not be subsidizing luxury travel. Yes, I know the reality, but Congress does not and Amtrak is an easy target.

Hi,

I am sure that many people don't think of the train as an option, it's just not on their radar. A few years ago, we visited Buffalo by train, and took a local bus up to see Niagra Falls. We alighted in a one way street, and later needed to find the correct bus stop for our return journey back to Buffalo. We asked loads of people, including hotel staff, etc.. Many people were quite amazed to hear that such a bus route even existed. Once again, simply not on their radar.

I believe with more awareness of "green" issues, more publicity, more investment, that train ridership can only increase in the future. It is not right for every journey, but it is high time for an integrated public transport system, bus times meet train times, meet aircraft, etc, etc.

Eddie

My mom and stepfather took the Empire Builder MSP to SEA and back, in May of this year. They have taken a lot of trips in the last ten years or so, including several cruises. This was their first train trip since they were very young.

My mom said when she talked to people about the trip before they left, everyone was so interested to know about it, she said they were far more curious and excited to hear about it than any cruise or other flying or road trip that she'd ever been on. She said everyone wanted to know all the details, how it worked, how much it cost, wanted to hear all about it when she got back, said they'd been meaning to try it, etc. She said she was pretty surprised at the response. This interest expressed from people in the Minneapolis suburbs.

People who are comfortable with flying are never going to embrace overnight rail travel. The plane will always be faster, and most people want to maximize the time spent at their destination.

However, there are still a lot of people who can't or won't fly. I have known many people who routinely drive long distances (1,000+ miles) for family vacations, who have never even considered taking the train.

My sister's family has never flown, but had always driven until I convinced them to try the Auto Train for a Florida vacation. They absolutely loved the experience, and now they travel by train on all their vacations. So there is definitely still an untapped market for long-distance trains.

(BTW, the Auto Train is a perfect "starter" train for people trying long-distance train travel for the first time. People seem to really like the concept of keeping their car without actually having to drive it. Plus the on-board experience is top-notch, even in coach.)

As someone who grew up traveling by train, it's almost weird to me how little some people know about it. My parents might have been kind of oddball-ish in that they always traveled by train (with me) and also sent me on trains alone all around the country right up through the 1980's, and then being used to it, I just kept on with that. So to me, train travel is just a normal thing.

As I've gotten older, I've become more of a railfan and I've looked at a lot of the history of train travel just for the fun of it. So I know that pre-1960 or so, everybody pretty much knew as much about trains and train travel as I did when I was a kid. It's the same as how most people know at least basic things about flying these days.

But it's always amazing to me that nowadays, people don't even know basic train terminology. I live in New York and I've noticed that news reports now never mention "catenary" when they talk about the NEC, they always say "overhead wires". Even when I was a kid, they still used "catenary". They similarly never use the word "pantograph", but instead one of a number of tortured phrases trying to explain what a pantograph is. (My favorite that I've heard is "overhead wire catcher".)

Good luck also trying to explain the difference between a sightseer lounge or dome car and an "observation" car.

These are obviously superficial things, but it is symptomatic of the fact that it's like a whole generation of national knowledge about trains has been lost or skipped. When I mention to people that I've taken the train across country many times, they're like "what?!" A lot of people don't even know you can still do that; still others just think it's crazy. But I'll bet a lot of them would like it if they tried it.

To add to the reasons why so few people take LD trains:

There are lots of myths about Amtrak LD trains that I've encountered over the years. These include:

1) Amtrak is always late. Now granted, this is a problem on some routes, but it's not nearly as bad as some people think it is.

2) Amtrak is way too slow. Again, partly true, but people seem to think it's worse than it is. I once overheard a conversation where someone said that they thought of taking a long-distance train to see the country, but it "takes a week to get from New York to LA" and "it's faster to drive or even take a bus."

3) Amtrak is for poor people: some people seem to view Amtrak as about the equivalent of Greyhound, if not worse.

4) Amtrak is uncomfortable. Some people imagine airline- or Greyhound-like seat pitch in Amtrak coach, and can't fathom going long distances in such conditions.

5) Amtrak is too expensive: this usually comes from people who actually bothered to check the fares at some point, but with no understanding of the bucket system, assume that high bucket fares are the norm.

6) Amtrak doesn't serve my city. For example, I had several friends from Houston who had no clue Amtrak even stopped in their city.

Amtrak does a decent job of advertising the Heartland Flyer in Oklahoma, especially with periodic ads in the University of Oklahoma student paper. Yet I am surprised how many people I encounter in this area who still have no idea and are surprised to find out a "people train" (as one student said to me) comes through here twice a day. And I've given up trying to explain the difference between a Dome Car, Observation Car and SSL

darien-l said:

4) Amtrak is uncomfortable. Some people imagine airline- or Greyhound-like seat pitch in Amtrak coach, and can't fathom going long distances in such conditions.

Click to expand...

This is actually the one I hear most. It comes from airlines more than buses, though - people are used to being crammed into a tiny seat on an airplane and they think all travel is like that. I actually think this is the most important thing Amtrak needs to overcome, at least among those that already know Amtrak exists.

I know they do advertise how comfortable their trains are, but they need to be more specific. Tell people that airlines have 33" of seat pitch while they offer 56", or whatever it is. Their marketing is too general and vague on this; airlines also talk about how comfortable their planes are, and they're obviously not.

spacecadet said:

I know they do advertise how comfortable their trains are, but they need to be more specific. Tell people that airlines have 33" of seat pitch while they offer 56", or whatever it is. Their marketing is too general and vague on this; airlines also talk about how comfortable their planes are, and they're obviously not.

Click to expand...

Seat pitch in what? Amfleet I? Amfleet II? Superliner? Surfliners? Cascades? I think the problem is that markets where advertising is most effective (NE, California, etc.) are served by several types of trains with very different seat pitches. For example, if Amtrak advertises a 56" pitch on "long-distance trains" in the NYC area, and then people take, say, the Adirondack from NYP to Montreal (which most people would consider "long-distance") and find themselves crammed into an Amfleet I for 11 hours, there's bound to be disappointment. While the seat pitch on most LD trains is indeed very generous, there is not enough consistency in the Amtrak system for the advertising to get too specific. I've seen enough mixed Amfleet I/Amfleet II consists that even I am often confused about what kind of seat pitch I would get on a given trip.

Being most people that fly are familiar with the size of first class seats, perhaps a good way to describe the LD train coach seats would be to say that they are larger and have more legroom that a first class seat on an airplane.

darien-l said:

Seat pitch in what? Amfleet I? Amfleet II? Superliner? Surfliners? Cascades? I think the problem is that markets where advertising is most effective (NE, California, etc.) are served by several types of trains with very different seat pitches.

Click to expand...

I don't think they're really all that different. I'm not sure about the Talgo stuff, and obviously the Acela Express is in its own category (and people in the NE know that), but from what I recall, all Amfleet cars are either 60 or 84 seats, Superliners are either 72 or 96 seats, and correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the California cars are also 96 seats.

So there are basically two types of coach seating, long haul and short haul. (A 72 seat Superliner would have approximately the same seat pitch as a 60 seat Amfleet car, maybe a little bit more.) You can definitely quibble about what constitutes a "short haul" trip, but this is how Amtrak themselves divide them up. Just two categories, long haul/short haul or low density/high density, whatever terminology you want to use.

Given that, I think all Amtrak would really need to do is look at the longest route they have running only high-density equipment and just say any trip longer than 600 miles (or whatever) and you get a seat with more legroom than domestic first class on an airplane. Beyond that, they could also advertise this for specific destinations from major cities. Example: take the LSL New York-Chicago and enjoy either private compartments or first class-style seating with a 56" pitch. There are definitely ways they could market this where very few people would get stuck with less legroom they expected, and a lot of people would end up with more (many times I have ridden short distances in long-haul equipment).

Anyway, even if a few people did end up confused, educating the rest on the fact that Amtrak trains do have a ridiculous amount of legroom would still be preferable to most people thinking they're as uncomfortable as airplanes.

I believe that the general opinion of airline travelers is that Amtraks prices are very high. They go to Amtrak.com a few weeks before they wish to travel and look at the sleeper prices and just say no way! We are value conscious people want comfort and find high bucket fare out of our budget. Therefore we book our vacations and train trips 11 months out and always reserve a bedroom at an affordable price. As the Amtrak refund policy in not punitive last minute changes are no problem.

We often check airfare vs. train fare and air fare always comes out less expensive. So lets do a comparison on our next years trip.

Amtrak Fare CLP-NOL and NOL-CLP in a bedroom comes out to $919.00. ( 2 people)

Going via airline

Air fare from the closest airport $187 x 2 = $374.00

Baggage charge for 4 pieces of luggage 100.00

airport parking 5 days $15.00 per day 75.00

Total to fly $549.00

Now it could be said that Amtrak is providing us with 3 meals so they are probably worth $100 in total

Will wil enjoy free parking and we get a room to sleep for the night which I also value at $100. Even if you account for all of the added things Amtrak stil costs more that airline coach but its worth it to us to not have to suffer the crowded, unhealthy, filthy dehumanizating conditons that goes with air travel.

The other item in my comparison is that sleeper service is the highest level of service that Amtrak offers so it can be said that it must rival first class air fare which is about the same price as on the overnight trip.

The other argument that can be made is that Amtrak coach fare is less expensive than flying but on LD trains you need to sleep in a seat which BTW many air travelers do on coast to coast red eye flights.

In view of the above I guess the best argument that can be made for rail travel is that it is comfortable, convienient and more fun than air travel.

We should not expect the die hard air travelers to flock to the rails anytime soon but Amtrak continues to grow and gaining in popularity.

spacecadet said:

darien-l said:

Seat pitch in what? Amfleet I? Amfleet II? Superliner? Surfliners? Cascades? I think the problem is that markets where advertising is most effective (NE, California, etc.) are served by several types of trains with very different seat pitches.

Click to expand...

I don't think they're really all that different. I'm not sure about the Talgo stuff, and obviously the Acela Express is in its own category (and people in the NE know that), but from what I recall, all Amfleet cars are either 60 or 84 seats, Superliners are either 72 or 96 seats, and correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the California cars are also 96 seats.

So there are basically two types of coach seating, long haul and short haul. (A 72 seat Superliner would have approximately the same seat pitch as a 60 seat Amfleet car, maybe a little bit more.) You can definitely quibble about what constitutes a "short haul" trip, but this is how Amtrak themselves divide them up. Just two categories, long haul/short haul or low density/high density, whatever terminology you want to use.

Given that, I think all Amtrak would really need to do is look at the longest route they have running only high-density equipment and just say any trip longer than 600 miles (or whatever) and you get a seat with more legroom than domestic first class on an airplane. Beyond that, they could also advertise this for specific destinations from major cities. Example: take the LSL New York-Chicago and enjoy either private compartments or first class-style seating with a 56" pitch. There are definitely ways they could market this where very few people would get stuck with less legroom they expected, and a lot of people would end up with more (many times I have ridden short distances in long-haul equipment).

Anyway, even if a few people did end up confused, educating the rest on the fact that Amtrak trains do have a ridiculous amount of legroom would still be preferable to most people thinking they're as uncomfortable as airplanes.

Click to expand...

All excellent points. I think Amtrak should hire you to be in charge of their PR and marketing!

Many people hear the price of a 2 night cross country trip in a sleeper, and say "That's so much, we can drive there for less"! What they don't realize is that the price includes the rail fare for 2, a room to sleep in and 3 meals a day for 2 people!

I have never heard of a hotel where you stop and go to sleep near Omaha, NB and wake up near Denver, CO! And I have never heard of a McD's that you stop your car at in Sacramento, CA and go inside to eat. When you come back out, you find yourself in Davis, CA!

spacecadet said:

darien-l said:

4) Amtrak is uncomfortable. Some people imagine airline- or Greyhound-like seat pitch in Amtrak coach, and can't fathom going long distances in such conditions.

Click to expand...

This is actually the one I hear most. It comes from airlines more than buses, though - people are used to being crammed into a tiny seat on an airplane and they think all travel is like that. I actually think this is the most important thing Amtrak needs to overcome, at least among those that already know Amtrak exists.

I know they do advertise how comfortable their trains are, but they need to be more specific. Tell people that airlines have 33" of seat pitch while they offer 56", or whatever it is. Their marketing is too general and vague on this; airlines also talk about how comfortable their planes are, and they're obviously not.

Click to expand...

But there's more to it than that. Travelers realize that they can put up with a small, cramped seat for an hour or two better than a slightly larger but still plenty confining seat overnight. A seat that one has to sit in for so much longer has to be more than a few inches better to even make it an even trade.

My other half went on an overnight trip on the CL earlier this year. When I mentioned this comment to her she relived what she found to be horrible discomfort all over again, and I doubt she will ever travel LD coach again.

Those extra inches just aren't enough to make up for the time spent in them. Travelers realize this.

spacecadet said:

As someone who grew up traveling by train, it's almost weird to me how little some people know about it. My parents might have been kind of oddball-ish in that they always traveled by train (with me) and also sent me on trains alone all around the country right up through the 1980's, and then being used to it, I just kept on with that. So to me, train travel is just a normal thing.

As I've gotten older, I've become more of a railfan and I've looked at a lot of the history of train travel just for the fun of it. So I know that pre-1960 or so, everybody pretty much knew as much about trains and train travel as I did when I was a kid. It's the same as how most people know at least basic things about flying these days.

But it's always amazing to me that nowadays, people don't even know basic train terminology. I live in New York and I've noticed that news reports now never mention "catenary" when they talk about the NEC, they always say "overhead wires". Even when I was a kid, they still used "catenary". They similarly never use the word "pantograph", but instead one of a number of tortured phrases trying to explain what a pantograph is. (My favorite that I've heard is "overhead wire catcher".)

Good luck also trying to explain the difference between a sightseer lounge or dome car and an "observation" car.

These are obviously superficial things, but it is symptomatic of the fact that it's like a whole generation of national knowledge about trains has been lost or skipped. When I mention to people that I've taken the train across country many times, they're like "what?!" A lot of people don't even know you can still do that; still others just think it's crazy. But I'll bet a lot of them would like it if they tried it.

Click to expand...

Interesting post. I could especially identify about trying to explain the differences between a SSL, a dome and an observation car. (and, including, for that matter, the old open platform obs).

Bill Haithcoat said:

spacecadet said:

Good luck also trying to explain the difference between a sightseer lounge or dome car and an "observation" car.

Click to expand...

I could especially identify about trying to explain the differences between a SSL, a dome and an observation car. ( and, including, for that matter, the old open plastform obs).

Click to expand...

{sarcasm}

They're all the same - they all are on a train and have wheels!

{sarcasm off}