> ...about half the price and Amtrak is losing money?
>
> How is that even possible?
Amtrak runs routes across a very large area, they run more infrequently than European schedules, and their capital equipment is aging. Combine these with the factors the Economist article brought up that user totalZero wrote about, and you end up with a very messy, expensive, customer-inconvenient situation.
The American freight rail system is the envy of the world, but it comes at the cost of the passenger rail system, which doesn't access to nearly the same scale of subsidies that road and air transport networks enjoy in the US.
If you are traveling by yourself, can book well in advance, don't require access to a shower facility, have lots of flexibility with your timetable, and have your own means of an Internet connection, then Amtrak is a great, low-stress, inexpensive, energy-efficient travel option for this inter-city range to longer ranges.
Among some use cases where Amtrak doesn't fit as well are:
* If you worry about securing valuables while sleeping (cable lock alarms work as long as you fit the valuables into overhead space, of which there is always plenty, but if you have more than that to worry about, then ship ahead if you can).
* If you have a restrictive diet that Amtrak doesn't cater to (bring your own works well, freeze ahead of time and that will get you through a continuous 3-day itinerary).
* Traveling with children (the rooms with beds are more expensive than equivalent airfare for everyone in many cases).
* Must have continuous cell-based Internet access (big swathes of land in Western US have simply zero cell signal coverage, and a speeding steel tube isn't the best platform to pick up signals even in the best cell coverage areas, an observation car if you have one is the best, I'm trying a satellite phone next time I ride Amtrak into the Western US).