6 ms·

As a very frequent Amtrak rider, I’m pretty conflicted here. On one hand, climate change is bad. On the other hand, giving the Amtrak fleet a bath, or altogethe

As a very frequent Amtrak rider, I’m pretty conflicted here. On one hand, climate change is bad. On the other hand, giving the Amtrak fleet a bath, or altogether destroying it sounds pretty good to me.

jeklj 8y ago
Come on
pavel_lishin 8y ago
> On the other hand, giving the Amtrak fleet a bath, or altogether destroying it sounds pretty good to me. Why?
- ams6110 8y ago
  Amtrak is hands-down the worst passenger rail service I've ever used, out of services in four different countries. I will say I've never used Amtrak in the Northeast which I understand is somewhat better than the rest of the country, but that's not saying much.
  - darkerside 8y ago
    Northeast corridor is not perfect, but very usable. Much preferred to flying between most of Boston, NY, Philly, DC, etc.
  - 13of40 8y ago
    I've only used it on the west coast, but it seems like the service, cleanliness, etc. are comparable to European and Asian trains, but because the Amtrak trains are super slow and the distances here are so much greater, riding anywhere on it is a terrible experience. Not to mention the fact that it's almost as expensive as flying. (Just checked and it would cost me $79 to fly to Portland from Seattle and $53 to take the train. Kind of a no-brainer.)
    - pavel_lishin 8y ago
      > (Just checked and it would cost me $79 to fly to Portland from Seattle and $53 to take the train. Kind of a no-brainer.) I agree, but as someone who hates flying, and is very bothered by TSA's production, I would hands-down take the train over the plane in almost every circumstance.
      - geerlingguy 8y ago
        It is nice to just walk up to the train and board at your leisure. And having a power outlet and legroom is also nice too.
    - lowercased 8y ago
      > Just checked and it would cost me $79 to fly to Portland from Seattle and $53 to take the train Baggage? Taking one or two bags up to 50lbs each on Amtrak looks to be always included.
    - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
      Why is that a no-brainer? In Seattle, first you have to get to the airport. Sea-Tac isn't exactly in Seattle. Depending on where you're coming from, King Street may be easier to reach. Then there's the bit about arriving at the airport 2 hours before, in order to pass through security. Yeah, you can probably cheat on the two hours, depending on how long security lines tend to be at Sea-Tac. Still, it's a chunk of time you don't have to spend when you take the train. Roll all that together, and I'm not sure that the train is much slower. And it costs less, and the scenery is better. So from where I sit, it doesn't look like a no-brainer at all. Have I missed something?
      - mikey_p 8y ago
        One major downside is that the schedule is very unpredictable between Portland and Seattle, due to right of way being preempted by freight traffic. It's not uncommon to have to pull into a siding and sit for 10-20 minutes several times. That said the comfort between train and air travel is night and day, you get much more space, plenty of outlets, room to get up and move around, purchase food and drinks, even if the food is worse than airline food.
  - ilikehurdles 8y ago
    It's not going to magically get replaced by a better service if it disappears. The way I see it they have limited capital and no shortage of antagonist political forces. The NE corridor was often worth riding despite other options, and the train connecting portland with seattle was pleasant as well, for me.
  - paulie_a 8y ago
    I don't know what your expectations are but I've been taking it for 20 years in the Midwest. It is great every time. Usually I get two seats. It's clean, the seats are pretty comfortable, the conductors are friendly as well as the fellow passengers. I can crack a beer, watch a movie in peace or do some work. What else can you ask for?
- rayiner 8y ago
  I commuted on Amtrak for two years between DC and Baltimore. The train was routinely 15 minutes late, and regularly 1 hour+. Destroying it might allow something else to be built in its place.
  - joncrane 8y ago
    Why didn't you use MARC?
    - rayiner 8y ago
      MARC is also routinely late because they have to sit behind Amtrak trains that are running late. And an Amtrak train that is 15 minutes late will get to D.C. in the same total time as a MARC train that's on time. Also, MARC is sometimes delayed leaving DC, while the 188 Amtrak always leaves D.C. on time. (Even the one that derailed and killed a bunch of people after I got off at Baltimore, left D.C. at 7:10 on the nose.)
      - leetcrew 8y ago
        also MARC and Amtrak have different endpoints in DC. even though it's more expensive, Amtrak may put an arbitrary person closer to where they need to be.
        rayiner 8y ago
        They both stop in Union Station?
mikejulietbravo 8y ago
It was mostly a joke, I ride the Amtrak multiple times per month. It's pretty awful. Unless you're taking the Acela you need to budget 2+ hours for the inevitable delays. On the NE Regional, I'm delayed 1/3 trips at least.

jeklj 8y ago

Come on

pavel_lishin 8y ago

> On the other hand, giving the Amtrak fleet a bath, or altogether destroying it sounds pretty good to me. Why?

ams6110 8y ago
Amtrak is hands-down the worst passenger rail service I've ever used, out of services in four different countries. I will say I've never used Amtrak in the Northeast which I understand is somewhat better than the rest of the country, but that's not saying much.
- darkerside 8y ago
  Northeast corridor is not perfect, but very usable. Much preferred to flying between most of Boston, NY, Philly, DC, etc.
- 13of40 8y ago
  I've only used it on the west coast, but it seems like the service, cleanliness, etc. are comparable to European and Asian trains, but because the Amtrak trains are super slow and the distances here are so much greater, riding anywhere on it is a terrible experience. Not to mention the fact that it's almost as expensive as flying. (Just checked and it would cost me $79 to fly to Portland from Seattle and $53 to take the train. Kind of a no-brainer.)
  - pavel_lishin 8y ago
    > (Just checked and it would cost me $79 to fly to Portland from Seattle and $53 to take the train. Kind of a no-brainer.) I agree, but as someone who hates flying, and is very bothered by TSA's production, I would hands-down take the train over the plane in almost every circumstance.
    - geerlingguy 8y ago
      It is nice to just walk up to the train and board at your leisure. And having a power outlet and legroom is also nice too.
  - lowercased 8y ago
    > Just checked and it would cost me $79 to fly to Portland from Seattle and $53 to take the train Baggage? Taking one or two bags up to 50lbs each on Amtrak looks to be always included.
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    Why is that a no-brainer? In Seattle, first you have to get to the airport. Sea-Tac isn't exactly in Seattle. Depending on where you're coming from, King Street may be easier to reach. Then there's the bit about arriving at the airport 2 hours before, in order to pass through security. Yeah, you can probably cheat on the two hours, depending on how long security lines tend to be at Sea-Tac. Still, it's a chunk of time you don't have to spend when you take the train. Roll all that together, and I'm not sure that the train is much slower. And it costs less, and the scenery is better. So from where I sit, it doesn't look like a no-brainer at all. Have I missed something?
    - mikey_p 8y ago
      One major downside is that the schedule is very unpredictable between Portland and Seattle, due to right of way being preempted by freight traffic. It's not uncommon to have to pull into a siding and sit for 10-20 minutes several times. That said the comfort between train and air travel is night and day, you get much more space, plenty of outlets, room to get up and move around, purchase food and drinks, even if the food is worse than airline food.
- ilikehurdles 8y ago
  It's not going to magically get replaced by a better service if it disappears. The way I see it they have limited capital and no shortage of antagonist political forces. The NE corridor was often worth riding despite other options, and the train connecting portland with seattle was pleasant as well, for me.
- paulie_a 8y ago
  I don't know what your expectations are but I've been taking it for 20 years in the Midwest. It is great every time. Usually I get two seats. It's clean, the seats are pretty comfortable, the conductors are friendly as well as the fellow passengers. I can crack a beer, watch a movie in peace or do some work. What else can you ask for?
rayiner 8y ago
I commuted on Amtrak for two years between DC and Baltimore. The train was routinely 15 minutes late, and regularly 1 hour+. Destroying it might allow something else to be built in its place.
- joncrane 8y ago
  Why didn't you use MARC?
  - rayiner 8y ago
    MARC is also routinely late because they have to sit behind Amtrak trains that are running late. And an Amtrak train that is 15 minutes late will get to D.C. in the same total time as a MARC train that's on time. Also, MARC is sometimes delayed leaving DC, while the 188 Amtrak always leaves D.C. on time. (Even the one that derailed and killed a bunch of people after I got off at Baltimore, left D.C. at 7:10 on the nose.)
    - leetcrew 8y ago
      also MARC and Amtrak have different endpoints in DC. even though it's more expensive, Amtrak may put an arbitrary person closer to where they need to be.
      - rayiner 8y ago
        They both stop in Union Station?

mikejulietbravo 8y ago

It was mostly a joke, I ride the Amtrak multiple times per month. It's pretty awful. Unless you're taking the Acela you need to budget 2+ hours for the inevitable delays. On the NE Regional, I'm delayed 1/3 trips at least.