Hacker News Reader

Comment by rayiner | Hacker News Reader

Wow, did Amtrak knock up that guy's teenage sister or what?

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.

View on HN

While I don't share the cartoonists political views, I can't blame him for the frustration. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coast_Starlight

> 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.

They should change the schedule. What's the point of having an impossible-to-meet schedule anyways? Sets unrealistic expectations and constantly disappoints passengers.

The problem isn't that they don't have enough time to get from point A to point B. The delays happen all over the line.

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.

That is a very long line, though -- 34 hours. 6 hours behind schedule is a lot in absolute terms, but it's only about 17%. I've often had 6 hour trips turn into 7 hour trips, in all modes of transportation.

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.

It's in Reason, a libertarian magazine (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason_%28magazine%29), so it's not surprising that it views Amtrak, which is funded by the government, as History's Greatest Monster.

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.

The superior service in the Northeast Corridor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_Corridor has a lot more to do with Amtrak and the like owning those rails, and optimizing most of it for passenger vs. freight traffic (the former prefers banked tracks in curves, the latter vertical rails for bearing weight).

It's pretty striking really. Amtrak makes a fair bit of money on the Northeast Corridor (and a couple of related routes) and then universally loses that money across the rest of the country, especially the long-haul routes like the California Zephyr. One of these days I'll have to take one of their long Western routes although I suspect that it's more romantic in theory than it is in practice.

"Amtrak makes a fair bit of money on the Northeast Corridor (and a couple of related routes)"

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...

Thanks for the pointers. Although it doesn't invalidate the fact that ridership in the Northeast Corridor is a huge percentage of that in the overall system.

Yep, that is where the ridership is and is also the reason for quite a few objections to pouring more money into Amtrak. The service and website are a pain anywhere else.

The Cascades line can be nice as well.

The comic seems a pretty accurate description of an unlucky, delayed train trip. It's how you would see it if you were an unbelievably self-centered whiner who despised people in general.

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."

Yes I take amtrak every other weekend, i love it. No horrible and insulting security checks, so much leg room, decent toilets, power outlets, good air conditioning, food pantry that sells alcohol, polite staff. I dont get the hate. I love it.

Amtrak's NE Corridor is wonderful (I also do the NYC<->DC regularly) but elsewhere its a lot worse. I also did DC<->Norfolk a lot, and that (a 4-5 hour ride) was often delayed 2-4 hours and sometimes as much as 24.

I am guessing the NYC/DC train corridor is nicer than what we have on the west coast. I was looking into a holiday ride through silver country here, and the reviews unfortunately came back a big "heck no."

I've taken the Coast Starlight trip 2 times and would do it again in a heartbeat (had a sleeper room both times) - there's some awesome scenery in southern Oregon and through northern California as it travels along the coast:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coast_Starlight

I find train travel to be super relaxing - check it out sometime if you get a chance.

I've done cross-country Amtrak travel multiple times and enjoyed it every time. You just have to be prepared for potential delays and willing to take it easy and roll with it. If you aren't in a hurry and see the trip as part of your vacation, then it's great.

Exactly. Sometimes the mindset is to get somewhere fast. What we really want? A teleport. But we have to settle for air travel.

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.

And for Boston to New York, I really find it a lot more pleasant and almost as fast as flying--especially if you're going into Manhattan anyway. The only reason I'd fly to New York would be if I had a morning meeting and couldn't go down the night before for some reason.

That said, you go much further than New York and the train makes less sense either in terms of time or money.

I found the Acela north of New York (NY-Boston) to be great, but south of New York (NY-DC) my experience was a bone-rattling ride from hell. It was shaking so bad it threw my laptop off the table not once, but twice.

Boston to NYC or NYC to Washington are relatively short runs (under 4 hours or so) as well. And they're in a very populated corridor in which IMO the driving isn't very pleasant. (Plus they can take you downtown to downtown which is often an advantage.)

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 .

I've never taken the NYC/DC route (never had a need), but taking the California Zephyr and the Empire Builder have always been magnificent experiences for me. Absolutely beautiful, relaxed rides. Let that be a counteranecdote.

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.

Amtrak from San Diego to LA is quite pleasant, though I can't speak for other west coast routes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com