How about making the paying Amtrak experience nice instead of making a Potemkin ride? (see: http://reason.com/archives/2005/12/01/amtrak-sucks )
As someone who has taken train/plane/bus/car between NYC and DC the last couple of years, I can say without a doubt that Amtrak is the most civilized way to get between those two places. If I didn't have family in Oregon I'd never get on a plane again.
Whereas sometimes the mindset "the journey not the destination". That's when you can appreciate a train, ocean liner, bicycle, or feet.
Having said that, Acela is usually the best of both worlds.
That said, you go much further than New York and the train makes less sense either in terms of time or money.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coast_Starlight
I find train travel to be super relaxing - check it out sometime if you get a chance.
My long distance travel has been exclusively by Amtrak for the past ten years. I live in Chicago, which is pretty central to the system - I might not have been so strict if I lived somewhere else.
Train gets a lot less interesting as an option as the distance increases. I have taken Amtrak from Boston to Washington and it's definitely doable but it's not really especially competitive with flying .
That being said, there is definitely a drop-off in quality of service on Amtrak between the Northeast Corridor (DC to Boston) and the routes covering the rest of the country. Because the Northeast Corridor is by far the most heavily traveled and profitable part of Amtrak's network (see http://www.brookings.edu/research/interactives/2013/amtrakro...), it gets a level of service that other long-haul routes unfortunately do not.
This claim was made in a WP article[1], but as this government report[2] points out, the accounting procedures used were flawed. To the point a Brookings Institute report[3] which reported in Slate[4] got the numbers wrong. Basically, it is only profitable if you do not count capital costs.
1) http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/commuting/amtrak-faces-c...
2) http://www.oig.dot.gov/sites/dot/files/Amtrak's%20New%20Cost...
3) http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Reports/2013...
4) http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/03/01/amtrak_profit...
> In recent years the train acquired the nickname "Coast Starlate" because of its abysmal on-time record. From October 2005 through August 2006 it arrived on time only 2% of the time, often running 5 to 11 hours behind schedule.
I've taken that line... it is beautiful (and provides an amazing view of Vandenberg AFB) but you've got to be in no hurry. The staff were amazed when we were "only" 6 hours behind schedule.
Unfortunately for Amtrak the North-East corridor trains that you've experienced are the exception, not the rule.
Since the route has dozens of stops, and a multi-hour delay could happen between any of them, where do you put the slack in the schedule?
It also didn't help that it took until 2013 to get GPS tracking on their fleet: http://blog.amtrak.com/2013/09/google-helps-track-a-train/ I would have linked to the status page itself but it is, fittingly, down for maintenance today. Just knowing whether your train was running behind before going to the station wasn't available until recently.
What it comes down to is that 34 hour trips are not something we are ready to put up with anymore, unless we somehow make the trip itself part of the goal, whether it's an "Amtrak Residency" or a long range road trip with the sights and the hotels.
Having 3-5 shorts lines service the 34h/1400mi overall length makes more sense really. Maybe 5 7h lines during the day, and 3 11h overnighters. 7 to 8 hours is about as long as I'm willing to spend in a daytime train, and my previous experiences with 10 to 12 hour sleeper wagon trips have been pretty great, too. Any trips longer than that you can either spend a night in Sacramento or you have to take a plane or you just don't go and vote that the rail network gets improved beyond a pathetic 40 mph average.
I have no doubt that his train arrived 6 hours late, and that one of the crew couldn't pronounce Sauvignon Blanc. Not sure that it counts as a major tragedy.
There should have been a warning on that link for people who remember Peter Bagge from 90s comics: "Yet another person that you were entertained by when you were young turns out to be a total prick, don't click if you don't want a piece of your childhood spoiled."
I used to take a train from San Diego to Santa Barbara regularly during college. I probably road it 10 to 15 times. The train was often late, and twice EXTREMELY late. Once, I waited at the station over 8 hours. The train had broken down, and another train was sent to push it to the station. That train broke down too.
On one trip, my train ran out of fuel. I didn't think this was even possible. We sat in dim emergency-level lighting in the blackness of night for 4 hours waiting for another train to come push us to the station.
Otherwise, it's a great experience. Low price, smooth ride, electrical outlets, and cell phone signal. It takes longer than other modes of transportation (even when on time), but that's fine by me.
I was on that train; it was the day before Thanksgiving. It was the worst public transportation incident I had ever experienced. On top of the engine breaking down the electricity also went out, which prevented the air conditioners from running. With the large amount of people the trains were carrying, the heat grew to be too much and someone ended up fainting. So we had to wait about an hour for the ambulance to come by and revive the person.
Once we reached the LA station, because we had two large trains coupled to each other, people couldn't get off because the platform wasn't large enough. So they had to back the train out, decouple some cars, and go back into the platform. This went on several times before everyone could get off.
I also didn't get the "Potemkin" reference. I thought it meant something made just for show.