4 ms·

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

by 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.
  - Al-Khwarizmi 8y ago
    The food is worse than airline food? Wow. Is that even possible?
  - lostapathy 8y ago
    How can the food be worse than airline food? I haven’t been on a flight in years that had anything other than prepackaged snacks available at any price.
    - Symbiote 8y ago
      I have eaten one Amtrak meal. It was a burger in a plastic wrap, which was microwaved to heat it. I've had bad airline food, like British Airways ten years back, and food from British trains, but Amtrak's offering was easily the worst. Hopefully they've improved by now. The best meal was on a Swiss train (in Germany). That was also the cheapest Swiss food I've ever had.
  - selimthegrim 8y ago
    On the east coast Amtrak is doing this thing where they pull the dining cars off of long distance trains and have snack cars only and offer lower roomette fares in return. Reviews are mixed.
- rayiner 8y ago
  > Have I missed something? Yes. Sitting for hours at the Amtrak station waiting for a delayed train to arrive.
donarb 8y ago
I'd gladly pay $79 to take the train since I don't have to go through that silly TSA crap at the airport.
taude 8y ago
Don't forget to add airport overhead and potentially the time it takes to get to airport over train station (if you live in the city), getting through security, boarding the plane, waiting to depart, etc. Might not even be a time savings when it's all said and done. For me, living in Boston, going to NYC on the NEC a lot, I still prefer the train, even though it's expensive (I just went to NYC for thanksgiving), sometimes more than flying. Some benefits to me (especially because I live 10 minutes from Back Bay Station): 1) Not paying expensive cab fees from La Guardia/JFK airport into city 2) Not sitting in car for the hour it takes to get from the airport, even worse in times of traffic 3) Transport to the airport outbound, waiting in security, checking bags, boarding via sections, fighting to place bag in overhead, waiting while plane loads, waiting to taxi on runway, etc. And then, once on the train, it's really relaxing. And I love the costal views. Try to sit on the coast side to/from NYC. Trains are clean, too. It's true, they aren't as NICE or speedy as the Asian trains (I was in Shanghai recently and totally blown away by their train systems there -- most of which was built in last 20 years), but over all trip simplicity, effeciency, etc. are still better than flying for these short trips, IMHO.
- kibwen 8y ago
  The Northeast corridor is one thing, but the rest of the country has an entirely different experience with Amtrak. I once took a train from Pittsburgh to Chicago which was scheduled to depart at 8 AM. Instead we ended up boarding at noon, and apparently this is a completely typical delay. I hate airports, but the unimaginable volatility of Amtrak will more than erase the benefit of not trudging through airport security, as well as make it impossible to schedule any connecting transport at your destination. As for the view, the California Zephyr is indeed breathtaking between Denver and Reno, but prepare to spend a night sleeping in your seat or on the floor of a rattling traincar (sleeper cabins exist, sure... for ten times the price of flying).
  - taude 8y ago
    I assume the NEC is a pretty special case for Amtrak. It would be interesting to see what % revenue for Amtrak comes for the NEC, too. It's such a cornerstone to NE travel. Sold out often, etc.
kccqzy 8y ago
Well I have experience using it on the west coast too, and I think it's a decent alternative if you aren't so pressed for time. Travelling from Los Angeles to San Jose by train costs about the same as flying economy, but takes about 8x more time, and in return you get roomy seats, less hassle due to security screening, nice views outside the window, the freedom to walk around and stand up basically any time. It's totally not a no-brainer.

by 13of40 8y ago

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.
- Al-Khwarizmi 8y ago
  The food is worse than airline food? Wow. Is that even possible?
- lostapathy 8y ago
  How can the food be worse than airline food? I haven’t been on a flight in years that had anything other than prepackaged snacks available at any price.
  - Symbiote 8y ago
    I have eaten one Amtrak meal. It was a burger in a plastic wrap, which was microwaved to heat it. I've had bad airline food, like British Airways ten years back, and food from British trains, but Amtrak's offering was easily the worst. Hopefully they've improved by now. The best meal was on a Swiss train (in Germany). That was also the cheapest Swiss food I've ever had.
- selimthegrim 8y ago
  On the east coast Amtrak is doing this thing where they pull the dining cars off of long distance trains and have snack cars only and offer lower roomette fares in return. Reviews are mixed.
rayiner 8y ago
> Have I missed something? Yes. Sitting for hours at the Amtrak station waiting for a delayed train to arrive.

donarb 8y ago

I'd gladly pay $79 to take the train since I don't have to go through that silly TSA crap at the airport.

taude 8y ago

Don't forget to add airport overhead and potentially the time it takes to get to airport over train station (if you live in the city), getting through security, boarding the plane, waiting to depart, etc. Might not even be a time savings when it's all said and done. For me, living in Boston, going to NYC on the NEC a lot, I still prefer the train, even though it's expensive (I just went to NYC for thanksgiving), sometimes more than flying. Some benefits to me (especially because I live 10 minutes from Back Bay Station): 1) Not paying expensive cab fees from La Guardia/JFK airport into city 2) Not sitting in car for the hour it takes to get from the airport, even worse in times of traffic 3) Transport to the airport outbound, waiting in security, checking bags, boarding via sections, fighting to place bag in overhead, waiting while plane loads, waiting to taxi on runway, etc. And then, once on the train, it's really relaxing. And I love the costal views. Try to sit on the coast side to/from NYC. Trains are clean, too. It's true, they aren't as NICE or speedy as the Asian trains (I was in Shanghai recently and totally blown away by their train systems there -- most of which was built in last 20 years), but over all trip simplicity, effeciency, etc. are still better than flying for these short trips, IMHO.

kibwen 8y ago
The Northeast corridor is one thing, but the rest of the country has an entirely different experience with Amtrak. I once took a train from Pittsburgh to Chicago which was scheduled to depart at 8 AM. Instead we ended up boarding at noon, and apparently this is a completely typical delay. I hate airports, but the unimaginable volatility of Amtrak will more than erase the benefit of not trudging through airport security, as well as make it impossible to schedule any connecting transport at your destination. As for the view, the California Zephyr is indeed breathtaking between Denver and Reno, but prepare to spend a night sleeping in your seat or on the floor of a rattling traincar (sleeper cabins exist, sure... for ten times the price of flying).
- taude 8y ago
  I assume the NEC is a pretty special case for Amtrak. It would be interesting to see what % revenue for Amtrak comes for the NEC, too. It's such a cornerstone to NE travel. Sold out often, etc.

kccqzy 8y ago

Well I have experience using it on the west coast too, and I think it's a decent alternative if you aren't so pressed for time. Travelling from Los Angeles to San Jose by train costs about the same as flying economy, but takes about 8x more time, and in return you get roomy seats, less hassle due to security screening, nice views outside the window, the freedom to walk around and stand up basically any time. It's totally not a no-brainer.