22 ms·

Amtrak to add WiFi, upgrade Fleet

17 points by anderzole 17y ago

jdminhbg 17y ago
Amazing to me that airlines were able to beat Amtrak to the punch on Wifi, considering what must be a very wide gap in technical difficulty.
- Imprecate 17y ago
  It's not that amazing. Amtrak is a quasai-governmental entity; airlines face a lot of competition. Planes fly longer distances and have no alternate way to get online. People on a 3-4h train ride might be satisfied with a Blackberry or iPhone.
  - Empact 17y ago
    And the most important of these? Accountability. It happens that the Amtrak Downeaster line (http://amtrakdowneaster.com/ http://amtrakdowneaster.com/) is unique in having WIFI, but it wasn't Amtrak that set up the service, rather it was the Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority. That is, a local authority, which is more directly accountable to the riders of that line, a far cry from Amtrak's "accountability" to Congress. Likewise, the other decent line I've ridden, the Cascades line (www.amtrakcascades.com/) is largely supported by & accountable to the Washington and Oregon state governments. Amtrak is a decades-old failed experiment. Here's to hoping private & state-run high-speed passenger rail authorities show the way forward. My money is on Texas: http://www.thsrtc.com/ http://www.thsrtc.com/
leelin 17y ago
These are the public transit options for NYC-BOS commuting nowadays: (all buses about 4.5 hours all-in) Bolt / MegaBus: $10-25 with free WiFi from Penn Station Fung Wah / Lucky Star: $15 every half hour from Chinatown Limo Liner: $70-100 WiFi, comfy seats, bus attendant, free snacks Airplane: $60-100, 1 hour flight, 2.5h all-in time Amtrak regional train: $60-70, 4.25 hours Amtrak Acela: $90-110, 3.75 hours Acela to me is the least attractive option, and free WiFi + a fleet upgrade won't change that. Of course some people hate buses and planes, have special travel circumstances, want to be able to stroll the aisles, etc, but Acela's target market seems quite niche, especially when compared to the standard Amtrak regional service. There are also cheaper options for the shorter legs. There are much cheaper trains or buses for NYC to New Haven, Boston to Providence, NYC to DC, for example.
- Imprecate 17y ago
  Is that round-trip? I looked on Kayak and a round-trip flight tomorrow is at least $300. I don't think the busses and trains get so much more expensive at the last minute, but I could be wrong.
  - jrockway 17y ago
    In my experience, Amtrak is almost always more expensive last-minute than flying. I remember trying to go from Chicago to St. Louis once, and was quoted $600! Needless to say, I took the $130 last-minute flight instead, and saved myself several hours in the process. I used to always price Amtrak out for my various domestic trips, because I think the train is cool. But it was always way more expensive than flying. (The only people I know now that ride Amtrak are those with irrational fears of flying. And I say this with great regret, because I am a huge railfan.)
    - tedunangst 17y ago
      Something special must have been happening, because right now a train ticket from Chicago to St. Louis leaving in 12 hours is $65. If you can wait until 7:00 pm, it's only $23.
      - jrockway 17y ago
        Once the Chicago-Kansas City trains fill up, you get to St. Louis via a Chicago-New Orleans train. That is much, much more expensive for some reason.
- dangrover 17y ago
  Well, you save some time taking the train: no going through security, or going to a giant airport 10-20 miles outside of a city.
  - hugs 17y ago
    No going through security... until a terrorist attack by "The Train Bomber" grips the nation.
gphil 17y ago
As a semi-frequent traveler on the Northeast Corridor, I want to be excited about this, but the upcharge for the Acela on top of already expensive Amtrak tickets adds up to quite a bit more than the upgrade is worth IMO. The regular Amtrak trains are convenient and comfortable, but I still always feel like I'm overpaying whenever I take one. Busses aren't glamorous but they're definitely the best option for the budget-conscious traveler in this neck of the woods.
kingkawn 17y ago
The old benefit of Amtrak is that you could count on your arrival time into any major large city, as opposed to buses, which were often late due to traffic. Lately Amtrak has been failing this with repeated track delays, washouts due to rain, and other track problems. For me this has removed a great deal of its benefit, at least in the northeast corridor where I usually travel.
- ashishk 17y ago
  What's crazy is that not once, but twice in the past month, I've been on a train from BOS-NYC that has broken down at some point in CT or RI. The first time they sent a new train (we boarded it using planks laid across the tracks) and the second time they sent a new engine car. Otherwise, yes Amtrak has been more reliable than Megabus/Boltbus =)
jacquesm 17y ago
How about buying some Alsthom gear and laying high speed rail across the USA ? the country is pretty much made for it, and it would save a bundle of fuel and money. Also none of that check in business. If it would just be used to connect the clusters of major cities within the cluster itself that would already be a pretty good thing to have.
- ericd 17y ago
  Acela was originally supposed to travel at TGV-class speeds on the Northeast corridor, but I believe it was neutered by noise complaints/regulations which resulted in it being not much faster than regional service from NYC to Boston (or a bus, for that matter). It doesn't seem to be a serious priority for the national govt.
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    Interesting, I never knew that. The noise complaints would have to come from people that have experienced the noise though, if they never made it that far that's really strange to see it listed as a reason. The TGV is an amazing bit of engineering, I've made the trip along the elevated sections by car a couple of times and to be overtaken by a train with such a speed difference is really impressive (I live too far away from a connection point so I prefer to take the car). They average about 280 km/h, and even though there definitely is noise I'd rather hear a TGV swooshing by than an aircraft overhead for minutes or a regular passenger train.
    - ericd 17y ago
      I can't seem to find a good source for the noise complaint part, so it may be hearsay (sorry for the potential misinfo). Wiki seems to attribute it mostly to issues with track electrification and some other issues: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acela_Express#High_speed_issues http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acela_Express#High_speed_issues Most of the track is definitely not equal to the special stuff laid down for the TGV's very high speed sections, so I'm sure that's a contributing factor.

17 points by anderzole 17y ago

Amazing to me that airlines were able to beat Amtrak to the punch on Wifi, considering what must be a very wide gap in technical difficulty.

Imprecate 17y ago
It's not that amazing. Amtrak is a quasai-governmental entity; airlines face a lot of competition. Planes fly longer distances and have no alternate way to get online. People on a 3-4h train ride might be satisfied with a Blackberry or iPhone.
- Empact 17y ago
  And the most important of these? Accountability. It happens that the Amtrak Downeaster line (http://amtrakdowneaster.com/ http://amtrakdowneaster.com/) is unique in having WIFI, but it wasn't Amtrak that set up the service, rather it was the Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority. That is, a local authority, which is more directly accountable to the riders of that line, a far cry from Amtrak's "accountability" to Congress. Likewise, the other decent line I've ridden, the Cascades line (www.amtrakcascades.com/) is largely supported by & accountable to the Washington and Oregon state governments. Amtrak is a decades-old failed experiment. Here's to hoping private & state-run high-speed passenger rail authorities show the way forward. My money is on Texas: http://www.thsrtc.com/ http://www.thsrtc.com/

leelin 17y ago

These are the public transit options for NYC-BOS commuting nowadays: (all buses about 4.5 hours all-in) Bolt / MegaBus: $10-25 with free WiFi from Penn Station Fung Wah / Lucky Star: $15 every half hour from Chinatown Limo Liner: $70-100 WiFi, comfy seats, bus attendant, free snacks Airplane: $60-100, 1 hour flight, 2.5h all-in time Amtrak regional train: $60-70, 4.25 hours Amtrak Acela: $90-110, 3.75 hours Acela to me is the least attractive option, and free WiFi + a fleet upgrade won't change that. Of course some people hate buses and planes, have special travel circumstances, want to be able to stroll the aisles, etc, but Acela's target market seems quite niche, especially when compared to the standard Amtrak regional service. There are also cheaper options for the shorter legs. There are much cheaper trains or buses for NYC to New Haven, Boston to Providence, NYC to DC, for example.

Imprecate 17y ago
Is that round-trip? I looked on Kayak and a round-trip flight tomorrow is at least $300. I don't think the busses and trains get so much more expensive at the last minute, but I could be wrong.
- jrockway 17y ago
  In my experience, Amtrak is almost always more expensive last-minute than flying. I remember trying to go from Chicago to St. Louis once, and was quoted $600! Needless to say, I took the $130 last-minute flight instead, and saved myself several hours in the process. I used to always price Amtrak out for my various domestic trips, because I think the train is cool. But it was always way more expensive than flying. (The only people I know now that ride Amtrak are those with irrational fears of flying. And I say this with great regret, because I am a huge railfan.)
  - tedunangst 17y ago
    Something special must have been happening, because right now a train ticket from Chicago to St. Louis leaving in 12 hours is $65. If you can wait until 7:00 pm, it's only $23.
    - jrockway 17y ago
      Once the Chicago-Kansas City trains fill up, you get to St. Louis via a Chicago-New Orleans train. That is much, much more expensive for some reason.
dangrover 17y ago
Well, you save some time taking the train: no going through security, or going to a giant airport 10-20 miles outside of a city.
- hugs 17y ago
  No going through security... until a terrorist attack by "The Train Bomber" grips the nation.

gphil 17y ago

As a semi-frequent traveler on the Northeast Corridor, I want to be excited about this, but the upcharge for the Acela on top of already expensive Amtrak tickets adds up to quite a bit more than the upgrade is worth IMO. The regular Amtrak trains are convenient and comfortable, but I still always feel like I'm overpaying whenever I take one. Busses aren't glamorous but they're definitely the best option for the budget-conscious traveler in this neck of the woods.

kingkawn 17y ago

The old benefit of Amtrak is that you could count on your arrival time into any major large city, as opposed to buses, which were often late due to traffic. Lately Amtrak has been failing this with repeated track delays, washouts due to rain, and other track problems. For me this has removed a great deal of its benefit, at least in the northeast corridor where I usually travel.

ashishk 17y ago
What's crazy is that not once, but twice in the past month, I've been on a train from BOS-NYC that has broken down at some point in CT or RI. The first time they sent a new train (we boarded it using planks laid across the tracks) and the second time they sent a new engine car. Otherwise, yes Amtrak has been more reliable than Megabus/Boltbus =)

jacquesm 17y ago

How about buying some Alsthom gear and laying high speed rail across the USA ? the country is pretty much made for it, and it would save a bundle of fuel and money. Also none of that check in business. If it would just be used to connect the clusters of major cities within the cluster itself that would already be a pretty good thing to have.

ericd 17y ago
Acela was originally supposed to travel at TGV-class speeds on the Northeast corridor, but I believe it was neutered by noise complaints/regulations which resulted in it being not much faster than regional service from NYC to Boston (or a bus, for that matter). It doesn't seem to be a serious priority for the national govt.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  Interesting, I never knew that. The noise complaints would have to come from people that have experienced the noise though, if they never made it that far that's really strange to see it listed as a reason. The TGV is an amazing bit of engineering, I've made the trip along the elevated sections by car a couple of times and to be overtaken by a train with such a speed difference is really impressive (I live too far away from a connection point so I prefer to take the car). They average about 280 km/h, and even though there definitely is noise I'd rather hear a TGV swooshing by than an aircraft overhead for minutes or a regular passenger train.
  - ericd 17y ago
    I can't seem to find a good source for the noise complaint part, so it may be hearsay (sorry for the potential misinfo). Wiki seems to attribute it mostly to issues with track electrification and some other issues: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acela_Express#High_speed_issues http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acela_Express#High_speed_issues Most of the track is definitely not equal to the special stuff laid down for the TGV's very high speed sections, so I'm sure that's a contributing factor.