Replies

Depends on where you ride it. In the Northeast, trains ride on Class 7 and 8 track and can get average speeds above 80 mph. Elsewhere, the trains ride on Class 4 track (so mandated by the almighty federal government, i.e. to be the least expensive/most affordable for freight operations under the current federal regulations) and average speeds slow down to 40 mph or slower. Back when interstate rail travel was more prevalent, intercity trains ran at average speeds of 60 mph at least, which was best practice for the level of technology at the time.

In the late 60s, the federal government was promising 160 mph top speed for trains between New York and Washington DC. And they didn’t deliver; the first Metroliner had a top speed of 110 mph. 45 years later, they are echoing the same promise; it’s like time stood still, but that’s what happens when government takes control.

Why don't Americans ride trains? Because America is America.

Sure they can "work" in densely populated cities like the Eastern corridor. And I wouldn't even think of owning a car in NYC. But America is a BIG country, with stretches in the West where towns can be 100 miles from another.

I think you could ask the same question of Australia.

Trains I'm sure go through the big cities, but I'd be surprised if there's a whole lot of routes going deep into the bush.

Want to see Ayer's Rock? I've heard it's a great motorcycle excursion. But is there a train that goes there?

If by Northeast you mean Boston - NY - DC, probably true, since that is just about the only profitable line that Amtrak has. But two of the lines in PA, which, last time I checked was still in the Northeast, are just about the worst in the country. I've ridden the Pittsburgh to Lewistown line [which can either be a Pittsburgh to Philly or DC, depending on time of day.] That train is scheduled to run 3:15, which is already ridiculously long, and in the half-dozen times I rode it, it was never less than 40 minutes late. Once, it was THREE HOURS late. How do you arrive three hours late on a barely three hour run?

Cross country I've fared no better. A four hour layover in Chicago is usually more like five or six hours, and once, during an Amtrak labor stoppage I was in Union Station a whopping TWENTY HOURS.

In 1994 I was taking the California Zephyr through the Rockies. The train was scheduled for a 1 hour refueling in Denver. Because of the length of the stop, passengers were encouraged to go into the station for lunch or to stretch their legs. The train left without making any announcement after a mere twenty minutes, stranding over a hundred passengers on the platform who were ferried by SCHOOL BUS into Southern Wyoming, where they hooked up a drinking car and a passenger car onto a Conrail train to take us into Salt Lake City. So much for the scenic view of the Rockies.

Amtrak sucks, period. The reason no one rides the line is because they have very, very few scheduled runs, they can't stay on time, their cars are filthy and their service is terrible. The porter won't touch your luggage until you've actually walked up three steps and handed it to him, at which point he takes two steps, turns around, and places it in an insecure open access area, and you'd better have a fiver for him if you ever want to see your luggage again.

Amtrak has got one good commuter. But it isn't a serious alternative to air travel over any significant distance anywhere in this country.