I agree with henry6 that trying to make people go long distance when travel is a necessity (like business, a funeral, etc) is turning back the clock. The fact is long distance trains will always be slower than airplanes. But for leisure travel, why do you always have to be in a hurry? Make the travel a pleasure! That’s why I’d rather take the train cross country than an airplane.
Also another idea would be instead of having a dedicated auto train route, what about trying to put a few auto-carrier cars on the back of an existing train like the california zephyr? Obviously you wouldn’t want to unload cars at every stop, but possible at the major stops where the train has a little layover anyways (Chicago, Denver, Salt Lake, and Oakland). Now you say what about the unloading facilities? Well, what about them? For example, in Chicago Union Station, there is already auto access to the outmost track. Just pave over the track so that you can drive on the track and use a portable ramp to get the cars in. Yeah, it won’t work for 26 auto carriers like they have on the auto train, but why not for 3 or 4? Just do it to test the idea…
So, why no trans-Atlantic liner service anymore. Same argument. If “travel pleasure” is a key American value, why don’t we subsidize scheduled ocean liner service?
QM is a cruise and not a regular passenger service.
But the bigger question begged is, "does the world really want a liesurely, sophisticated, long distance (circle one or all: train, bus, ship, other) service? We have occasional special trips and tours, but on a regular basis, a “passenger service” basis? What kind of marketing would have to be done? I think as long as Amricans have to have it yesterday or the day before, or they have to have complete control of their own movement, then, rail will always be in the foreground of thought until such time as real intergrated transportation system is devised and marketed to them.
I am generally opposed to LD service, but bringing back the private Auto-Train might work. It should not be such a big deal to load/unload the car-carriers. In Germany, on DB they offer an overnight Autozug (Motorail) on different routes. While waiting for a train to berlin at the relatively small Hamhurg Altona terminal station one morning, I saw an Autozug arrive from Italy. The car-carrier wagons unloaded on one track by driving the length of the coupled cars and off onto the main cross platform and then out on the street. It all occurred very quickly (10-15 minutes).
The “so what” isn’t the time but the subsidy. I’m sure there are a fair amount of folks who would prefer to take an civilized, spacious, ocean liner to Europe instead of flying, but there is no regular service because the cost of running an ocean liner are so much greater than airline service that nobody’s in the market. Perhaps an “Amtrak of the Seas” would be able to provide service with a 50 cents on the dollar subsidy. Should we do t
[quote user=“oltmannd”]
For starters, I agree that taking the train is a nice way to travel. I love all those things you cited.
The “so what” isn’t the time but the subsidy. I’m sure there are a fair amount of folks who would prefer to take an civilized, spacious, ocean liner to Europe instead of flying, but there is no regular service because the cost of running an ocean liner are so much greater than airline service that nobody’s in the market. Perhaps an “Amtrak of the Seas” would be able to provide service with a 50 cents on the dollar subsidy. Should we do that, too?
I think the trick to keeping the LD trains around is to improve their performance. I kind of doubt there is enough improvement to be had to bring the subsidies in line with that of other modes.
At the start of Amtrak, the supposition was that LD routes would be pared down and corridor services would be expanded so that the corridors’ above the rails operating surplus could cross subsidize the few remaining LD trains. That never happened
That IS the question. Or, even more precisely, what value does the world place on… The answer, in the US, for LD train travel is “about half of what it costs”.
I think “want” is more meaningful than “have to have”. All other things being equal, we want things faster rather than slower. Of course, all other things" are never equal…
I was just wondering about transatlantic cruising with this month’s volcano problem. It might cost too much for those people but can it cost higher than furloughing in a hotel (non-voucher) for a week or more? The crisis may continue for several weeks or months even when they finally figure out how to fly around the ash clouds.
If they can hold out until April 29, Inside Brittanica (steerage) is $907 plus tax per person eastbound. 7 days.
I thought in the hey day of Trans-Atlantic Passenger steamships the transit time was more on the order of 4 to 5 days for the crossing. 7 days seems rather leasurely…approximately 500 miles a day, about 21 MPH or what is that in Knots? 17-18?
That sounds about right. I remember my parents taking the SS United States, which was the fastest, in 1964. It held the record of 3 days, 10 hrs. Normally it averaged a 30-knot (35 mph) crossing speed. Today’s ships are “built for comfort, not for speed” as the song goes. They don’t look very seaworthy, as all rooms are way above the waterline. Rather, they look like floating resort hotels.
People today do not go to Europe by ship. They will cruise to Europe aboard a ship. Therefore, 7 days over and 7 back per ship or ship one way and fly the other is the marketing plan. Yes, yes, you could take a ship to Europe but you would be a passenger under their cruise marketing and not as a commercial passenger as we would call it…
